1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7644 OF 2009 Uday Narayan Mahekar .. Petitioners Vs State of Maharashtra and ors .. Respondents Mr. Vishal V Kanade i/b Jai V Kanade, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel, i/b L. M. Acharya for respondent no.8. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, AGP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 07/09/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is arising from an application filed by the petitioner under section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960, (for short, “the Act”), seeking removal of respondent no.8 as a Director of Shri Mahalaxmi Co-operative Bank Limited, Kolhapur. The application was initially allowed by respondent no.5 and that order was challenged before respondent no.6. Respondent no.6 allowed the Revision Application vide his order dated12.8.2009. This order is impugned in the present writ petition. There is no dispute that T 2 the petitioner had filed the application under section 78(1) of the Act in pursuance of the order passed by respondent no.2, by which income certificate of respondent no.8 was set aside and it was declared that he does not belong to economically weaker section. That order of the Tahasildar was subsequently set aside by the Sub Divisional Officer and he remanded the matter to the Tahasildar for fresh hearing vide order dated 9.9.2008. Those proceedings are pending. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this petition and I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice. Respondent no.2-Tahasildar shall decide the application filed by the petitioner under section 73B(3) of the Act seeking cancellation of the income certificate and declaration that respondent no.8 does not belong to economically weaker section, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is open to the petitioner to file fresh application under section 78(1) if he ultimately succeeds in obtaining the order of cancellation of the income certificate of respondent no.8. This, however, shall not preclude respondent no.8 from opposing the application on all grounds available in law. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have 3 expressed any opinion on merits of the case. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)