1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 297/2011 IN WRIT PETITION No. 2955/2011. Kolbaswami Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha and 4 others. -VERSUS- Hon'ble Deputy Registrar, Co.op. Societies, Nagpur and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 13, 2011. Heard Shri N.A. Vyawahare, learned Counsel for appellants/petitioners, Shri Fulzele, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1,2 and 4 and Shri R. Vyas, learned Counsel for respondent no.3. The order of learned Single Judge dated 28.06.2011 in Writ Petition No. 2955/2011 has been assailed, contending that the Society was not served with a notice as required by Section 77A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, and it is further 2 contended that the finding about two groups functioning in the society is misconceived, as in 2010 the very same Authority has accepted the compliance report and Audit report submitted by body of appellants, which shows that appellants are managing the affairs. It is pointed out that the term of the newly elected body of which appellant is President, is about to expire on 24.08.2011 and hence, there was no need to appoint Administrator and President could have permitted to conduct and complete the elections. Learned Counsel also states that Section 77A [1][f] requires a finding by the authority appointing Administrator that there are two such groups functioning in the society who claim to be elected and dispute about it must be pending before the Cooperative Court. According to the learned Counsel, specific contention in this respect was raised before the learned Single Judge, but it has not been looked into. Our attention has been invited to the orders dated 23.03.2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar to urge that the said order does not even 3 record a finding on facts necessary for exercise of that power. Shri Vyas, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos.1,2 and 4, are supporting the order. Perusal of reported judgment of this Court shows that the publication of a notice on notice board under Section 77A, first proviso has been held mandatory and it has been found that the ordinary members of the Cooperative Society also have a right to oppose appointment of Administrator and it is not only the Managing Committee members who possess that right. Here no ordinary member has made any grievance about the absence of notice and has not chosen to approach either the Appellate Authority or then this Court. The perusal of provisions of Section 77A reveals powers with Deputy Registrar to appoint Administrator, where there is failure to constitute a committee or where the committee did not enter upon the office. Perusal of clause [c] thereof, shows that when committee is prevented from entering upon 4 office or a new committee fails to enter the office on the date on which terms of office of the existing committee expires, the Administrator can be appointed. Its sub-clause [a] shows that where more than one group of persons in a society claims to be elected as committee members and proceeding in respect thereof have been filed in the Cooperative Court, the Registrar can even suo moto or on an application appoint an Administrator. The controversy here has been looked into by the Authorities as also by the learned Single Judge. Before us, two sets of Audit reports are filed. The audit report submitted by the appellants dated 07.10.2010 is for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2010. Respondent no.3 Caveator has also filed the audit report for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2009 i.e. very same period. It is therefore, obvious that two separate records are being maintained and the affairs of the very same society [in same name and same registration number] appear to be managed by two groups. It is obvious that both the groups are doing this since long and in this situation, 5 the Deputy Registrar has found it appropriate to appoint the Administrator. The provisions of Section 77A[1][f] basically contemplate claim by more than one group to the administration of the society. Here as both the groups are claiming to be in power and prima facie it appears that they are maintaining two separate sets of documents and are managing the affairs independently, the appointment of Administrator does not appear to be either erroneous or bad. During hearing it has been pointed out to this Court that the Administrator as appointed has already declared elections program. It is therefore, obvious that after elections there will be only one group entitled to manage the affairs of the society. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Letters Patent Appeal is rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd