SSK/906 1 WP.1465.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1465 OF 2011 Dr. Vishnu Kakkar & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Rajendra Rathod i/b. Mr. O. A. Siddiqui, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mrs. Rita Bhatia, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 to 20. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 29th MARCH, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Rathod, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. Bhatia, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 20. 2. The petitioners and respondent nos. 5 to 20 along with others are the members of New Pushpa Vihar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (in short “the Society”). The election to the Managing Committee was held on 25th March, 2007 and eight members were elected to the Managing Committee for a period of five years. The Managing Committee took charge of the affairs of the said Society w.e.f. 1st April, 2007. However, they resigned and new eight members were elected in a Special General SSK/906 2 WP.1465.11 Meeting which was held on 15th July, 2007. It is pertinent to note that no election procedure was adopted while electing these members. The members elected in the Special General Meeting which was held on 15th July, 2007 also failed to give bonds within a period of 15 days of their elections in accordance with the provisions of Section 73 (1AB) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short “the Act”) and thus, they stood disqualified. It is pertinent to note that some of the disqualified members, thereafter, have resigned and new members have been co- opted. When all the members of the Managing Committee elected on 15th July, 2007 were disqualified for non furnishing of bonds, they cannot co-opt new members. 3. The respondent no.3-Deputy Registrar after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, in the above circumstances, was pleased to pass an order under Section 78(1) of the Act. This order was challenged by filing an appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar – Respondent No.2. The respondent no.2 admitted the appeal, however, refused stay on the ground that the members of the Managing Committee who are disqualified under Section 73(1AB) of the Act, deemed to have vacated their offices and therefore, they cannot induct new members in their place by co-option. The Divisional Joint Registrar also was of the opinion that fresh election should take place. SSK/906 3 WP.1465.11 4. The election to elect the members of the Managing Committee was held on 25th March, 2007. Even though the tenure of this Committee was for a period of five years, new members were shown to have been elected in Special General Body Meeting which was held on 15th July, 2007. The fact remains that the eight members who were shown to have elected on 15th July, 2007 (though without following the procedure for election) have not submitted M-20 forms as contemplated under Section 73(1AB) within a period of 15 days, and therefore, they are disqualified. In order to save the Managing Committee, the members allegedly elected in the Special General Meeting dated 15th July, 2007 have adopted novel modus-operandi viz. some of the members of this Managing Committee have resigned from time to time and in their place new members have been co-opted and these new members have subsequently given bonds as contemplated under Section 73 (1AB) of the Act. In my view, this cannot be permitted. The Deputy Registrar rightly passed the order under Section 78 taking into consideration all the relevant facts. This order though challenged was not stayed by the Appellate Authority viz. Divisional Joint Registrar-Respondent No. I do not find any error on the part of the Lower Authorities, and therefore, there is no justification for interference with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. SSK/906 4 WP.1465.11 5. The interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated. The respondent no.4-Administrator shall take charge of the Society. 6. At this stage, Mr. Rathod, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks extension of the interim relief granted earlier by this Court. The request is opposed by Mrs.Bhatia, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 20 and Ms.Cardozo, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Since I have already found that petitioners are not entitled to remain on the board of Managing Committee, I am not inclined to continue the interim stay granted earlier. The request is, therefore, rejected. (RANJIT MORE, J.)