1 SSK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5059 OF 2009 Mallikarjun Basappa Betgiri ....Petitioner Versus Solapur Gramudyog Telghana Sahakari Society Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. V. V. Purwant, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. I. M. Khairdi, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Surel S. Shah, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 23rd MARCH, 2010. P.C.: The present writ petition is filed by Original Respondent No.1 in Appeal No. 32 of 2009. 2. The Petitioner in present petition filed dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before the Co- operative Court for declaration that resolutions passed by the Managing Committee of Solapur Gramudyog Telghana Sahakari Society Ltd. in its Managing Committee’s meetings dated 13th January, 2006, 10th February, 2 2006, 23rd March, 2006 and 8th April, 2006, by which the present Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 were enrolled as the members of the said society, are illegal and void. The Petitioner has also filed an application for interim relief. 3. It is worth to mention that Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 were not impleaded as party Respondents to this Dispute. The Petitioner got notice of the Dispute issued to the Respondent No.1 on 7th March, 2009 and made it returnable on 9th March, 2009. On the returnable date, the Respondent No.1 filed its appearance alongwith reply, and on the very date, the dispute was allowed. 4. The Respondent No.2, 3 & 4 thereafter approached the Co-operative Appellate Court making grievance that the Order passed by the Co-operative Court was without following the principles of natural justice and therefore, bad in law. 5. The Co-operative Appellate Court by the impugned order, set- aside the Co-operative Court’s order and the matter was remanded on the ground that while passing the said order, the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have not been heard. The Appellate Court also found that Petitioner and Respondent No.1 had obtained order from the Trial Court by collusion and 3 therefore, was pleased to saddle the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 with cost of Rs.3,000/- , which order is impugned in present writ petition. 6. After hearing Mr.Purwant, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Khairdi, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Surel Shah, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 respectively, I find no merit in the Petition. I have perused the date of filing of the Dispute by the Petitioner before the Co-operative Court and also, the date on which the Respondent No.1 filed its appearance. Having regard to the fact that the Petitioner obtained order against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, without joining them in the Dispute and the said order was passed on the returnable date, on which the Respondent No.1 filed its appearance alongwith reply, I agree with the finding of the Appellate Court that there was collusion between Petitioner and the Respondent No.1. In the above circumstances, I do not find any fault in the Order passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court. The Petition is devoid of any merits and therefore, dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)