:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4373 OF 2006 Mr. Shanker Ghule and anr. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel with Mr. N.N. Bhadrashete for petitioners. Ms. V. Mhaispurkar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. P.M. Pradhan for respondent nos.5 and 8. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : August 2, 2006. Date : August 2, 2006. Date : August 2, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Sakhare the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Bhadrashete for the petitioners and Mr. Pradhan the learned counsel appears for respondent nos.5 and 8. Ms. Mhaispurkar, the learned AGP appears for respondent nos.1 to 4, has placed before me the record concerning the impugned order passed by the Joint Registrar under Section 21-A of the :2: Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 2. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 3. The record shows that the membership of the respondent no.8-society is around 242 or may be less, but it certainly appears to be above 150. Section 21-A of the Act read with Rule 18-C of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rule 1961 mandates that an opportunity is given to every individual member to appear before the Joint Registrar and the manner of giving notice to such members in large numbers has also been prescribed. From the record it is clear that the compliance of issuing notice to the individual members and providing them an opportunity of hearing has not been done and, therefore, on this ground alone the impugned order dated 17/6/2006 is unsustainable. This issue goes to the root of the case. 4. The said order is, therefore, quashed and set :3: aside and the application submitted by the respondent no.5-Mr. D.D. Kamble is remanded to the Joint Registrar for fresh hearing and after compliance with the procedure to issue notice to the individual members as set out in Rule 18-C referred to hereinabove. It is made clear that on remand, the application of respondent no.5 shall be heard and disposed off as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months. 5. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 6. Certified copy of this order shall be made available to the parties on priority. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)