1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3864 OF 2009 (Jashoba Madhyavarti Grahak Shakari Sanstha Ltd. vs. The Joint Registrar, Amravati & 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. FEBRUARY 05, 2010. Heard finally Shri Ukey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Thakare, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 & 3 and Shri Motghare, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5. The grievance of Shri Ukey, learned counsel is to invalidation of meeting. He relies upon Rule 59 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules to urge that first General Meeting of the Society is not required to be conducted in presence of a representative of Cooperative Department. He further states that the direction to conduct meeting in presence of such representative was issued on 20.10.2006 by District Deputy Registrar, Yavatmal, and it was challenged by the petitioner by filing revision. He states that after initial decision and remand by this Court, by impugned order dated 07.09.2007 that revision has been decided and the meeting as conducted has been held to be bad without any reference to challenge raised in revision about the communication dated 20.10.2006. 2 Shri Thakare, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 & 3 and Shri Motghare, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 support the impugned order. They point out that when challenged communication dated 20.10.2006 was pending, meeting could not have been held in violation thereof. According to them, the order holding meeting to be illegal calls for no interference. With the assistance of all learned counsel, I have perused the papers. The provisions of Rule 59 of the Rules shows that the first meeting is required to be conducted by the Chief Promoter within three months from the date of registration of society. The rule nowhere requires the first meeting to be convened in presence of representative of the Registrar. However, in case of failure on the part of such Promoter, the person authorized by the Registrar can convene the meeting. The perusal of impugned communication dated 20.10.2006 shows that there was some meeting conducted on 04.06.2006 and complaints in relation thereto were received and because of those complaints, the authority directed holding of fresh meeting in presence of representative of the department. The direction was issued on the strength of report dated 10.10.2006. The challenge to communication dated 20.10.2006 has not been looked into at all by the authorities. Thus, whether there was any failure on the part of the Promoter to conduct meeting within three 3 months or then in what circumstances the meeting was conducted and why the meeting has been held to be illegal only because it was not conducted in the presence of representative of the department, are the challenges not answered by impugned order. The impugned order dated 07.09.2007 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The Appeal No. 11 of 2007 is restored back to file of Respondent No. 1 for taking fresh decision in accordance with law as early as possible and in any case by 31st March 2010. The parties to appear before Respondent No.1 on 17th February 2010 and to abide by its further directions in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.