1 wp7740.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION kj WRIT PETITION NO.7740 OF 2010 Sau.Vidya Dilip Raorane & Anr. )..Petitioners Vs The Secretary ) Shri Anand Nagar Co-operative Society ) & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Sandesh Deshpande for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Borkar for the respondent nos 2 & 4. Mrs.P.s.Cardozo AGP for respondent nos.12 & 13. ---- Coram : A.S.OKA,J Date : 27.10. 2010. PC 1 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. It appears that on a complaint made by the petitioners, by order dated 19.5.2010, an order of appointment of Administrator of the 1st respondent society was passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies in exercise of powers under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co- 2 wp7740.10.sxw operative Societies Act, 1960. The said order was confirmed in appeal. In revision application filed by the society, the revisional authority has interfered and passed an order setting aside the appointment of Administrator. 2 The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the revision application filed by the society was not competent in as much as on the day on which revision application was filed, the society could have been represented only by the Administrator appointed. He submitted that the revision application ought not to have been entertained. His submission is that though new managing committee may have been elected from the year commencing 2008-2009, the members of the said managing committee were the part of the earlier managing committee. He, therefore, submitted that a finding was rightly recorded by the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies that the committee has committed violation of section 75(5) of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. He submitted that interference with the order appointing Administrator ought not to have been made 3 wp7740.10.sxw for the first time in revision. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. In the show cause notice issued on 3.5.2010, the allegations made are that the accounts of the society from 2001 onwards are not maintained and audited accounts have not been submitted. It is alleged that after 2003, not a single Annual general meeting was held and the committee which was in existence in 2006 has not submitted bonds. 4 A reply was filed to the show cause notice in which it was contended that earlier two committees have indulged in mis- appropriation and therefore, an inquiry under Sections 83 & 88 was in progress. It is submitted that fresh audit has been completed for the period ending 2001 and now, audit for the period 2001-2006 can be made. In the reply, it was contended that annual general meeting will be held after the audit for the period of 2001-2006 was completed. Lastly, it was contended that the new managing committee has taken charge on 8.3.2009 and has 4 wp7740.10.sxw submitted bonds in the prescribed forms. 5 The revisional authority, while passing the impugned order has observed that the present managing committee has completed period of only one year and due to illegality committed by the earlier managing committee, Annual general Meeting could not be held within the time stipulated. In the circumstances, revisional authority held that only on the ground of this breach, the entire managing committee could not have been superseded by appointing an Administrator. The other defaults were on the part of the earlier managing committee. 6 There is no reason to interfere with the reasoning adopted by the revisional authority. Even assuming that the society could not have filed the revision, there was a suo moto power of revision which could have been exercised. No case for interference is made out. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. (JUDGE)