IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5323 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5323 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5323 OF 2008 Sambhaji N. Athawale & others. ... Petitioners. V/s. State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. V.C.Ghosalkar for the petitioners. S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 22nd July 2008. DATED: 22nd July 2008. DATED: 22nd July 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Leave to amend. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondent No.2- Divisional Joint Registrar before whom appeal and stay application are pending for consideration. 4. In the pre-lunch session, the learned A.G.P. was asked to take instructions from the appellate authority so as to seek time-frame for disposal of the application for stay and/or appeal. 5. In the post-lunch session, the learned A.G.P. made a statement that within two weeks the respondent No.2 will dispose of the stay application or the appeal as the case may be. The learned counsel for the petitioners was not satisfied with this statement and proceeded to persuade this Court to consider his prayer for interim relief pending disposal of appeal. 6. In the above view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. both were heard. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the show-cause-notice was issued on three grounds, (i) refusal to admit nine persons as members of the Society; (ii) inaction leading to nonconsideration of the applications of the legal heirs of the deceased members for being admitted as members of the society; and (iii) failure to call requisition meeting within a period of one month from the date of receipt of requisition. 8. So far as first ground is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that litigation is pending against these nine persons as such due to legal impediment these persons were not admitted as members of the society. - 3 - 9. So far as second ground is concerned, he could not give any details as to when applications were received by the Society from the legal heirs of the deceased members; how many such applications were received; when they were processed; and when the legal heirs were called upon to remove short comings of their applications, if any. For want of these details on record, learned counsel for the petitioners found it very difficult to, prima facie; convince this Court that there was no lapse on the part of the Society on this count. 10. So far as convening requisition meeting is concerned, learned counsel is not in a position to give the exact date of the receipt of the requisition. According to him, it was received sometime in November, 2007. Within one month therefrom the requisition meeting ought to have been convened. No such meeting was convened. Consequently, Co-operative Department was required to issue direction to hold requisition meeting. No explanation was offered as to why meeting was not convened within a period of one month though requisition was a valid requisition. This lapse also remained to be unexplained. 11. The other ground, which is sought to be - 4 - canvassed to challenge the order impugned in the appeal filed before respondent No.2 is that there was no effective consultation given to the federal society. This submission is also misplaced. 12. It appears that the show-cause-notice dated 7th February, 2008 was issued to the Society under section 78 of the Co-operative Societies Act ("Act" for short). The reply was expected to be filed within 15 days from the date of receipt of show-cause-notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to give the date when the show-cause-notice was received. From the reply filed it appears that somewhere at the end of March, 2008, reply to show-cause-notice was filed. With a view to have effective consultation with the federal society, the show-cause-notice was sent. Since no reply was filed within the stipulated period, now the petitioners cannot take advantage of their own lapse to contend that reply ought to have been sent to the federal society for effective consultation. The federal society has sent a positive opinion in favour of appointing Administrator. No complaint in this behalf can be entertained at the instance of the petitioners. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits - 5 - that in the show-cause-notice, the issue of appointing Administrator was prejudged, therefore, the show-cause-notice is in breach of principles of natural justice. Having seen the show-cause-notice, submission made is misplaced. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners in extenso, no case for grant of interim relief pending appeal before the respondent No.2 is made out. No balance of convenience is shown is favour of the petitioners. If the Administrator is appointed, during the pendency of the appeal, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners considering the working of the Society. Petition is without any merit. 15. At this stage, I may observe that the observations made herein are prima facie. The appellate authority is expected to go into the record and apply its mind independently and pass order without getting influenced by this order. All rival contentions on merits are kept open. 16. In the result, petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. - 6 - (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)