1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 917/2008 (Virendra Haribhau Gajbhiye VERSUS State of Mah. & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. Sonbhadre, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1 to 4. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 28, 2008. Heard. The writ petition is directed against the action of administrator who has issued the tender notice dated 17.01.2008 whereby the tenders are invited for construction of factory building. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the administrator was basically, primarily appointed for holding elections of the petitioner society, and therefore, the administrator was expected to discharge the said duty and is not expected to do the other activities which are not associated with the elections of the Managing Committee. We have perused the order whereby the administrator came to be appointed. The perusal or the order shows that all the powers which are vested in the Managing Committee were vested in the administrator, and therefore, the above referred 2 contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE APTE