1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7270 OF 2009 Hemadri Sidram Pol & Ors. .. Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.N.N.Bhadrashete for the petitioners. Mr.S.K.Shinde for respondent no.7. Mr.H.S.Venegavkar for respondent no.4. Mr.S.N.Bhosale A.G.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 9TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2.. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. By this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.8.2009 passed by respondent no.1 whereby the revision bearing No.377 of 2009 filed by respondent nos.6 to 7 has been allowed and the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar dated 23.7.2009 has been set aside. By the order 2 dated 23.7.2009 the Divisional Joint Registrar has admitted the appeal filed by the petitioners and granted stay of the order dated 3.6.2009 passed by the Assitant Registrar under section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”). This order of admission of the appeal and stay was challenged by respondent nos.6 and 7 by way of revision before respondent no.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent no.4 – society contend that the impugned order was passed by the Minister without issuing notice to them and that they were not heard. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent no.4 has not been disputed by the learned counsel for respondent nos.5 to 7. In view thereof the order dated 10.8.2009 deserves to be set aside. Order accordingly. 4. At this stage, Mr.Venegavkar, learned counsel for respondent no.4 – society submits that during pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 3.6.2009 passed by the Assistant Registrar, the society conducted elections of the managing committee and new managing committee was, accordingly, elected and it took charge of the society on 9.8.2009. The learned counsel for respondent no.7 could not dispute the statement of Mr.Venegavkar. This being so, in my opinion, no fruitful purpose will be served by issuing direction to the Divisional Joint Registrar to decide the appeal. 3 As a matter of fact the order of Assistant Registrar dated 3.6.2009 passed under section 78(1) of the Act, in view of the elections, has rendered ineffective and as a consequence thereof the appeal has become infructuous. The order dated 3.6.2009 passed by the Assistant Registrar, in my opinion, cannot be executed in view of the changed circumstance. In the circumstances, the Divisional Joint Registrar to pass formal order dismissing the appeal as infructuous. This, however, shall not preclude respondent nos.5 to 8 from initiating any proceedings, if so advised, against the newly elected managing committee and/or against the members of the earlier managing committee. If any such proceedings are instituted same may be considered in accordance with law. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)