1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9936 OF 2009 Shri Ashok Pandurang Yemul .. Petitioner Vs TheDirector Textiles and Addl.Registrar Co-op Societies and Anr .. Respondents Mr.S.S.Shah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP, for Respondent nos 1 and 2. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 26/11/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 21.8.2009 passed by respondent no.1 under section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, whereby the petitioner was removed as a Director of Sharadha Yantramag Vinkar T 2 Sahakari Sutgirni Ltd. The petitioner got elected as a Director of the said society on the post reserved for weaker section. For contesting the said election, the petitioner had obtained income certificate dated 18.9.2006 issued by the Tahasildar. That certificate was subsequently cancelled by the Tahasildar and, in view thereof, the impugned action under section 78(1) was initiated against the petitioner by respondent no.1. In other words, the impugned order dated 21.8.2009 rests on the order of the Tahasildar dated 18.9.2006. 3. The order cancelling the certificate dated 18.9.2006 was challenged by the petitioner in Misc.Appeal No.7 of 2009 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Solapur Division, Solapur. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 16.11.2009. As a result thereof the income certificate issued by the Tahasildar stood restored. The petitioner has stated in the petition that he had brought to the notice of respondent no.1 about pendency of his appeal (bearing no. 7 of 2009), and prayed for adjournment of the proceedings till the appeal was decided by the Sub Divisional Officer. However, his request was turned down and the impugned order came to be passed. 4. I have perused the impugned order and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 16.11.2009. I have also noticed the statement of the opponent in the appeal (No.7 of 3 2009 – Ashok Pandurang Yemul Vs Sunil Dattatraya Palli). Keeping that in view, in my opinion, the impugned order dated 21.8.2009, based on the order of the Tahasildar, which does not hold the field, deserves to be set aside. Hence, the following order. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). No costs. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)