1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.141 of 2010 IN WP NO.4523/09 (D) Priyadarshani Magas Vargiya Kukkut Palan Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit and ors. ..vs.. Govt. of Mah., Dairy Development and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.S.K.Tambde, Adv. for the appellants. Mr.D.V.Siras, Adv. for respondent no.2. C ORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR AND A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 25th August, 2010. Heard. Admit. Taken-up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties. Learned counsel for the appellants argued assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the new Committee of administrators that is being appointed is an act of political interference. He further argued that the appellants have been conducting the affairs of the Society to the satisfaction of the authority and a 2 report to that effect also shows no fault with the appellants in conducting the affairs of the Society. He, therefore, submits that the appellant as Administrators could not be removed till regular elections to the Committee of the Society are held, and the appellants are ready to hold such elections. We have gone through the judgment and order recorded by the learned Single Judge. At the out set, we find that the appointment order of the appellant dated 12th of August, 2005 is specifically limited for the period of one year and the same expired on 12th of August, 2006. Admittedly, there is no extension thereafter for the Committee of the appellant as administrator. No steps were taken by the appellant to get extension from the appropriate authority. In view of the fact that in fact there was no extension of the tenure of the appellant/Committee, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order recorded by the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, find no substance in the Letters Patent Appeal. It is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE. 3 pzc