IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1276 OF 2007 Dagdu Pandurang Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... None for Petitioners. Mr.Pradeep Jadhav, A.G.P.for Respondents 1, 5 & 6. Mr.S.G.Surana for Respondent No.3. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. NOVEMBER 24, 2008. NOVEMBER 24, 2008. NOVEMBER 24, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. None appears for the Petitioners. This Petition was disposed of on January 11, 2008. On the basis of grievance canvassed on behalf of the Petitioners before this Court, the Court was persuaded to observe that the Respondent No.3 Society and the Registrar to ensure that elections are held for constituting newly elected Managing Committee of the Society not later than four months from the date of the order. However, that order : 2 : was passed in absence of Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 subsequently filed Review Petition before this Court pointing out that the representation made before the Court was incorrect, if not false. It was placed on record that the election to constitute newly elected Managing Committee of the Society was already held on 13th September 2007 which is much anterior in time to the passing of the order by this Court. It is on that basis, the order dated 11th January 2008 was recalled and the Writ Petition was ordered to be placed for rehearing for admission afresh. 2. Today, when the matter is called out, none appears for the Petitioners. There is nothing on record to doubt the stand taken by the Respondent No.3 that elections to constitute newly elected Managing Committee of the Society have already been conducted in September 2007 and the new Committee is in place. In this view of the matter, the principal grievance in the present Writ Petition pressed into service by the Petitioners is obviously a non-existant ground. In the circumstances, this Petition deserves to be : 3 : dismissed. 3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with exemplary cost to be paid by Petitioners to the Respondent No.3 and the State Authorities quantified at Rs.5,000/- each. Cost be paid within two weeks from today, failing which, office shall bring that position to the notice of the Court so that further directions can be issued in the matter, if required. 4. In addition to the above order, in the facts of the present case, I deem it necessary to issue show cause notice to the Petitioners as to why appropriate action should not be taken against them for making false and misleading statement before this Court on 11th January 2008 on the basis of which this Court was persuaded to pass order in favour of the Petitioners. That show cause notice is made returnable on 15th December 2008. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.