1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2031/2010. Vijay Sudhakar Kakde and others. -: VERSUS :- The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co.op. Society and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 27, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri A.M. Ghare, learned Counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri A.H. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5. No body appears for respondent no.3. One of the grievance of Shri Ghare, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in present petition is that, though respondent nos. 4 and 5 are removed along with petitioners under Section 78[1] of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 by the impugned order, later on they are inducted as Administrators and entire affairs of 2 the Society are handed over to them. Shri Patil, learned Counsel for respondents clarifies that the order was immediately reviewed and the original Administrator Shri Chavan has been restored and he is presently functioning as Administrator. Learned A.G.P. states that he has no instructions about these developments. However, in view of the solemn statement made by Shri Patil, learned counsel, it is not necessary for this Court to verify the position. The other grievance of Shri Ghare, learned counsel for petitioners is that the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing and on very first day when they appeared before respondent no.2 and sought adjournment of one month to file reply, the matter was closed for orders and thereafter on next date itself the order under Section 78[1] of the Act removing them came to be passed. According to him this has been done with undue haste and petitioners even did not get time to collect documents to show all compliances done by them. Shri Patil, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 does not accept this position. They contend that the order is just and proper. It is argued that as the application for 3 adjournment did not disclose any just and sufficient ground, respondent no.2 found it proper to reject it and having rejected it, respondent no.2 has proceeded to pass order in his own discretion.They point out that there are no allegations of malafides against respondent no.2 in the matter. As the facts show that petitioners on very first date had sought adjournment of one month, the Authority could have given them a reasonable time to file reply or to argue the matter. The passing of order on immediately next date shows some undue haste, however, only because of this nothing can be observed against respondent no.2 in the matter. But, then I find interest of justice in such circumstances, can be met with by permitting the petitioners to file reply before respondent no.2 by 10.08.2010. After such reply is filed, respondent no.2 shall proceed to hear them and pass further orders under section 78 of the Act, after considering said reply in accordance with the law. Only for said purpose the impugned orders dated 03.04.2010 are quashed and set aside. However, it is on express concession given by the petitioners, that till respondent no.2 passes fresh orders on application under Section 78[1] of the Act, the present Administrator Shri Chavan, will continue to 4 administer the affairs of the Society. Petitioners to appear before respondent no.2 on 10.08.2010 and file their reply. Respondent no.2 shall then proceed to hear them and pass further appropriate orders as early as possible and in any case by 30.09.2010. In view of the above discussion, Writ Petition is thus partly allowed, with no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute accordingly. JUDGE Rgd.