WP 5671 of 10 1 SSK/13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5671 OF 2010 Vatsala Namdeo Bhoir and Ors. ....Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Anilkumar Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED :26TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: At the outset, Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks oral leave to delete the name of Respondent No.4. Leave granted at his own risk. Amendment to be carried out within one week from today. 2. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Patne, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. The Petitioners are the office bearers of the Harijan Hitvardak Co-operative Housing Society. They got elected in the year 2007. The 2nd Respondent appointed an administrator on said society under section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on Petitioners’ WP 5671 of 10 2 failure to give bonds in the form of M-20 as contempleted under section 73(1-AB) of the M.C.S.Act, 1960. 4. The Petitioners have challenged this order by filing an appeal being no.2 of 2010 on 12th July, 2010 before th Respondent No.3-Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies under section 152 of the M.C.S.Act, 1960. The Petitioners have also prayed for stay to the order under section 78 of the M.C.S.Act, 1960. 5. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that inspite of the fact that they have approached the Respondent No.3 long back as on 12th July, 2010, the Respondent No.3 has not disposed of their prayer for stay. However, the administrator appointed under the above order is insisting the Petitioners to handover the charge. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGP, in my view the ends of justice will be met by directing the Respondent No.3 to decide the Petitioners’ appeal as expeditiously as possible and meanwhile protecting the Petitioners interest, otherwise, the Petitioners’ appeal will be rendered infructuous. The Petition is therefore conveniently disposed of, by passing the following order : WP 5671 of 10 3 1. The Respondent No.3 is directed to dispose of the Petitioners’ appeal being Appeal No.2 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 2. During the pendency and final disposal of the Petitioners’ appeal before Respondent No.3, the effect, operation and implementation of the order passed by the Respondent No.2 on 2nd July, 2010 under section 78 of the M.C.S.Act, 1960 in respect of appointment of an administrator on Harijan Hitvardak Co-operative Housing Society is stayed. 3. In the event, the said order of Respondent No.3 is adverse to the Petitioners’ interest, same shall not take effect for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the same to the Petitioners. (R. V. MORE, J.)