-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8370 OF 2008 Shaikh Shafi F.M.Dilliwale & Ors. .. Petitioners. V/s. 1. Dr.Krishna Lavekar & Ors. .. Respondents --- Mr. Y.R.Naik for the Petitioners. Mr. V.S.Masurkar, GP with Mr. S.M.Patil, AGP for the Respondent No.4. Mr.Rohan D.Pote with Mrs. Asmita D. Pote for the Respondent No.3. Mr.Sandeep Waghmare for the Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. (Vacation Court) DATED DATED DATED : 23rd DECEMBER,2008. : 23rd DECEMBER,2008. : 23rd DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. This petition is filed against Notice to show cause issued by the respondent no.1 on 12.12.2008 . 3. The petition appears to be premature inasmuch as the show cause notice by itself does not record any finding on merits and only prima facie material is brought to the notice of the petitioners in order to give them opportunity -: 2 :- to explain their stance. The petitioners apprehend that if adverse action is taken then there will be immediate removal of them from elected posts/office and loss of status as elected members of the co-operative Bank. The petitioners have filed copies of the earlier orders rendered in W.P. Nos. 2733/1095, 2683/1995, 5046/1997 etc.. 4. The petition appears to be premature. Hence, it is not maintainable. The apprehension of the petitioners seems to be illusory. There is no substratum to infer that the respondent no.1 has, in fact, arrived at any finding on the material issue. 5. The respondent no.1, it is expected, would decide the matter on its own merit without being prejudiced due to the filing of the present writ petition and that the issue whether the common bond would suffice the purpose having regard to the spirit of section 73-1AB of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 shall be considered independently on the merits of the matter. 6. The respondent no.1, in case gives any adverse finding against the petitioners then such order, if any, shall remain in abeyance for a period of four weeks in order to give sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to -: 3 :- ventilate their grievances by seeking legal remedy, as may be legally permissible. The period of four weeks would commence from the date of communication of any such apprehended adverse order if rendered by the respondent No.1. The status -quo position to be maintained for such four weeks without taking any adverse action against the petitioners during the relevant period as a fall out of the adverse order if rendered by the respondent no.1, u/sec. 78 of the M.C.S. Act. 7. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. ) .....