1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 392 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6158 OF 2006 Nitin Bhaurao Patil ... Petitioner (orig.Respondent No.5) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents And Mr. Maruti Raoji Redekar & Ors. ... Contemnors Mr.S.G.Surana, Advocate, for Smt. V.S.Upadhyay for the petitioner. Mr.D.A.Patil, AGP, for State. Ms. Meenal S. Shringarpure, advocate for respondents Nos. 5 to 13. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 10th January,2008. DATE: 10th January,2008. DATE: 10th January,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner is a member of respondent No.5 2 society. On his application, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai, had passed an order on 30.6.2006 appointing the Board of Administrators for running administration of the Society. That order was set aside by the Joint Registrar in an appeal preferred by respondents Nos. 5 to 13 by an order dated 15.7.2006. The order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar was challenged before the Government of Maharashtra. The Hon’ble Minister by the order dated 20.7.2006 gave interim stay to the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, the result of which was that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar making appointment of Board of Administrator came into force. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner contends that inspite of this position, the respondents issued certain circulars and tried to usurp the administration. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that respondent No.5 has filed Writ Petition No.6518 of 2006 wherein on 18.9.2006 this court passed an order of status quo as on that date. According to him, the Board of Administrator was actually functioning on that day and, therefore, the act of the respondents amounted to contempt of Court. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing. 3 Learned Counsel for the parties informed that several developments have taken place and the Board of Administrator is no more functioning. A newly elected body has come in power and the management of the Society is being run by the duly elected Management Committee of the Society. The learned Counsel for the petitioner informs that the election of the newly elected Management Committee is also challenged and that challenge is pending before the competent authority. 4. Taking into consideration all these circumstances, I find that no purpose will be served by taking any further action in this Contempt Petition. Therefore, the Contempt Petition stands disposed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)