1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3904 OF 2010 (Yashpal N. Janwani & Ors. vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-op. Society & Ors.) 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. NOVEMBER 18, 2010. Heard Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Fulzele, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 – Administrator. Nobody appears for respondent No.4. Shri Ghare, learned counsel states that Respondent No. 4 is also aggrieved by the impugned order and has been joined as Respondent No. 4 as he was not available at the time when the petition came to be filed. One of the contentions is, as per notice under Section 78(1) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the matter was fixed for 29.12.2009. On that date, the petitioners sought adjournment and were to be informed of the next date of hearing. That date was never informed and adjournment application dated 29.12.2009 came to be rejected on 21.01.2010 by Respondent No. 2 with a direction to prepare an order of supersession and appointment of Administrator. The learned counsel 2 states that thus, the petitioners and Respondent No. 4 have been declined an opportunity of hearing and to file reply. By inviting attention to various documents, an attempt is being made to show to this Court the compliance. Contention is, show cause notice was issued malafide without any material. The learned AGP as also Shri Mishra, learned counsel support the impugned order. Shri Mishra, learned counsel states that the Administrator has already started functioning. With the assistance of respective counsel, I have perused the papers. The petitioners have not specifically averred in appeal memo also that there were no omissions or violations and hence action under Section 78(1) of the Act was misconceived. For the first time by appreciating the correspondence between the parties on record, this Court cannot attempt to find out whether alleged omissions and violations were in existence or not. However, it is apparent that after 29.12.2009, no next date for hearing was communicated to the petitioners and they, therefore, did not get any opportunity either to file their reply or then to advance arguments orally before respondent No. 2. In this situation, interest of justice can be met with by permitting the petitioners and Respondent No. 4 to file their reply before Respondent No. 2 by 30th November 2010. If such a reply is filed, Respondent No. 2 shall hear them on merits of show cause notice and 3 pass fresh orders in accordance with law after complying with statutory requirements. The said orders shall be passed as early as possible and in any case by 15th January 2011. Only for said purpose and without observing anything on merits of the controversy, the impugned order dated 21.01.2010 passed by Respondent No. 2 and appellate order dated 09.08.2010 passed by Respondent No. 1 are quashed and set aside. However, as there is no express statement on affidavit before the appellate authority about alleged compliance, I find it proper to permit Respondent No. 3 – Administrator to continue to manage the affairs of the society till Respondent No. 2 passes further appropriate orders in the matter. Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to learned AGP. JUDGE *GS.