1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 660/2008 (Bandubhau @ Tukaram Kisanji Tagade, Chairman M.M.S.S.G.M., Sewagram VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.V. Samarth, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. S.S. Wandile, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1 to 4. Shri H.D. Dangre, counsel for the R-5 to 14. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 20th NOVEMBER, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by the respondent no.1 on 07.02.2008 in an appeal filed by the respondent nos.5 to 14 under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 challenging the decision taken by the respondent no.2 on 09.08.2007 thereby amending the bye-laws of the society. It is brought to the notice of this Court by a pursis filed by the respondent nos.5 to 14 on 26.09.2008 that the respondent nos.5 to 14 have 2 filed an application before the respondent no.1 for withdrawing the proceedings filed by them under Section 152 of the Act of 1960 in which the impugned order was passed. It is further brought to the notice of this Court and it is also submitted on behalf of respondent nos.5 to 14 by the learned counsel that the respondent nos.5 to 14 are not desirous of prosecuting the appeal filed by them before the respondent no.1. Since a statement has been made on behalf of respondent nos.5 to 14 that they are withdrawing the appeal filed by them under Section 152 of the Act of 1960 in which the impugned order was passed, Shri Samarth, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that nothing would survive in this petition in view of the statement made by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent nos.5 to 14 on the withdrawal of the appeal. In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent nos.5 to 14, the learned counsel for 3 the petitioner states that the petitioner is also not desirous of prosecuting this petition as the withdrawal of the appeal by the respondent nos.5 to 14 would mean that the decision of the respondent dated 09.08.2007 would stand. The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn. JUDGE APTE