1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4523/2009. Priyadarshani Magas Vargiya Kukkut Palan -: versus :- Government of Maharashtra 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 : MARCH 03, 2010. Heard Shri S.K. Tambde, learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 5 and Shri V. Siras, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4. Rejoinder filed by petitioner is taken on record. The impugned order dated 01.09.2009 replaces three Members on Administrative Board by three new Members. The order also directs holding of election at the earliest. The supercession of the society and appointment of Administrator as such is not in challenge. Shri Tambde, learned counsel for petitioners contended that earlier Board was working satisfactorily and there was no need to replace it. He further states that new members selected by respondent no.5 are suggested by the politicians and respondent no.5 has mechanically accepted the same. He has placed reliance upon the judgment reported at 1979 Mh.L.J. 267 (Shripatrao Limbaji Kadam and others .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others) in support of his contentions. 2 Learned A.G.P. as also Shri Siras, learned counsel appearing for respective respondents, point out that there Division Bench has considered the situation in absence of any provisions in Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act about termination of appointment of Committee appointed under Section 78[1][a][i] of the Act or to remove or or more members from the Committee and replace them with some others. It is apparent that the Division Bench judgment relied upon by the petitioners is not relevant here. Similarly, respondent no.5 is authorized by law to change the Members of the Administrative Board. He has accepted names suggested to him. In absence of any allegation of malafides, it is apparent that said exercise by respondent no.5 cannot be questioned in writ jurisdiction. However, it is expected that respondent no.1 and 5 shall hold the elections of the Society at the earliest possible opportunity. With these observations, Writ Petition is dismissed. At this stage, Shri Tambde, learned counsel makes a request that present order be suspended for a period of two weeks so as to enable the petitioner to file Letters Patent Appeal. The said request is rejected. Copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties. JUDGE Rgd.