( 1 ) wp2010.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2010 OF 2011 Shindhphana Matsya Vyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha, Majalgaon, Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed, Through its Secretary, Shri Gopinath Umaji Bhujange, Age. 32 years, Occ. Fisherman, R/o. Majalgaon, Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra (Through Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairy and Fisheries), Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. .. Respondents 2. The Hon’ble Minister for State, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairy and Fisheries, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 3. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Fisheries), Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 4. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Beed. 5. Narayan s/o. Rangnath Ghene, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Fule Nagar, Majalgaon, Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 6. Laxman s/o. Anjali Kajale, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Fule Nagar, Majalgaon, Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 7. Bapu s/o. Gangaram Hivre, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Bhoi Galli, Majalgaon, ( 2 ) wp2010.11 Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 8. Maharudra s/o. Uttam Ghene, Age. 39 years, Occ. Fisherman and Chairman of Shinddphana Matsya Vyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha,Majalgaon, R/o. Bhoi Galli, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 9. Sakharam s/o. Bhaguji Kajale, Age. Major, Occ. Fisherman and Chairman of Sinddphana Matsya Vyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha, Majalgaon, R/o. Bhoi Galli, Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 10. Vishwanath s/o. Katalu Ghene, Age. Major, Occ. Fisherman and Chairman of Sinddphana Matsya Vyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha, Majalgaon, R/o. Bhoi Galli, Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 11. Lata s/o. Tukaram Ghene, Age. Major, Occ. Fisherman and Chairman of Sinddphana Matsya Vyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha, Majalgaon, R/o. Bhoi Gali, Tal. Majalgaon, Dist Beed. 12. Majroddein Amiroddin Inamdar, Age. Major, Occ. Fisherman and Chairman of Shinddphana Matsya Vyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha, Majalgaon, R/o. Bhoi Galli, Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 13. Sunil s/o. Uttam Ghene, Age. Major, Occ. Fisherman and Chairman of Sinddphana Matsya Vyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha, Majalgaon, R/o. Bhoi Gali, Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 14. Bhaguji s/o. Chimaji Kajale, ( 3 ) wp2010.11 Age. Major, Occ. Fisherman and Chairman of Shinddphana Matsya Vyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha, Majalgaon, R/o. Bhoi Gali, Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Mr. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. V.S. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4; Mr. M.V. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent No. 9; Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent Nos. 8,10 to 13. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 22.09.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the judgment and order dated 9th February, 2011, passed by the Hon’ble State Minister for Animal Husbandry, Dairy and Fisheries, allowing revision of the respondents challenging the concurrent finding recorded by the Officers below that the decision of removal of the respondent – managing committee was proper. 3. The facts leading to the litigation in short can be narrated as under :- 4. It is common ground that the petitioner society is registered in 1990. In 2008 the respondents -the ( 4 ) wp2010.11 members of then managing committee- were at the helm of affairs of the society. But, respondent No.4 – Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Dairy) issued a notice to them to show cause as to why the committee should not be removed and an Administrator should not be appointed. Admittedly, the Assistant Registrar passed an order against the respondents and appointed an Administrator. The respondents thereafter, filed an appeal before respondent No.3, Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Fisheries), but the same was also dismissed on 3rd November, 2008. 5. The respondents ultimately filed revision before the Hon’ble Minister challenging the order of respondent No.3 dismissing their appeal on 15th November, 2008. The record shows that the Hon’ble Minister on that noted down that he would hear the case on 27th November for deciding as to whether he would grant stay to the impugned order. According to the respondents, the Hon’ble Minister passed such order and such order is still pending. They are trying to suggest that due to the stay granted to the order appointing Administrator on the society, they were able to continue the business of the society and whatever they did in the meantime for last more than two years was lawful and they also say that in view of the impugned order dated 9th February, 2011, they would be able to continue the business of the society as a lawfully ( 5 ) wp2010.11 elected managing committee. 6. The case of the respondents depends on their assertion that the Hon’ble Minister on 15th November, 2008, passed an order of stay. The State of Maharashtra has denied this by filing of affidavit of the concerned officer. The officer concerned stated in his affidavit that the Hon’ble Minister did not pass any order of stay. In view of this controversy about the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister has come to an end and respondents are unable to assert that there was an order passed by the Hon’ble Minister staying the effect of the order appointing Administrator etc. If this is clear then one can easily appreciate other facts of the case. 7. The Administrator so appointed on the society then held meeting for holding election to the managing committee on 13.01.2009. The election was held and it seems, the petitioners are members of the newly elected managing committee. The revision filed before the Hon’ble Minister remained pending till the last order of 9th February, 2011 was passed allowing it, but in the meantime the respondents also challenged legality of the election by filing a dispute in the Co-operative Court and it is pending. 8. In view of all these events that had taken place after the order of appointment of the Administrator was passed, the revision which was pending before the Hon’ble ( 6 ) wp2010.11 Minister virtually became infructuous. The Hon’ble Minister did not deal with this aspect of the case though submission to that effect were made. In view of the fact that the order directing appointment of the Administrator and removal of respondents' committee has attained its finality when the Administrator held the meeting for election and allowed the members of the society to elect new committee the revision was virtually infructuous. It was infructuous also because the respondents themselves admitted this by filing the dispute challenging the election of 13th January, 2009. The only dispute pending now between the parties is the one which is before the Co-operative Court. 9. In view of this, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Rule made absolute. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/SEP11/wp2010.11ok