{1} wp1137410.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11374 OF 2010 Anil s/o Anandrao Jadhav Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.Dhananjay B. Thoke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.P.More, A.G.P for respondents no.1 to 4. Mr.R.T.Nagargoje, advocate for Respondent No.5. Mr.A.R.Kawade, advocate for Respondents No.7, 9 & 19. Mr.G.D.Kale, advocate for Respondents No.8, 17 and 18. Mr.M.R.Sonawane, advocate for Respondents No.10, 14 & 20. Mr.V.C.Misal, advocate for Respondents No.12, 15 and 16. Mr.M.B.Bharaswadkar, advocate for Respondents No.13, 21 & 22. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 28 th January, 2011 PER COURT: 1 The petitioner is one of the Directors of the Society who lodged a complaint before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nasik Division, Nasik, complaining about the illegalities committed by the members of the Board of Directors and requested for taking action, as contemplated under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. The Divisional Joint Registrar issued notices to the concerned Director and on hearing the submissions and after making necessary inquiry, the learned Joint Registrar did not find it appropriate to proceed against the Board of Directors and dropped the proceedings. The petitioner is raising exception to the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar dropping the proceedings initiated under Section 78(1) of the Act. {2} wp1137410.odt 2 I have perused the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. It is submitted by the petitioner that before passing the order, the Divisional Joint Registrar has not consulted the federal society and as such the order is bad in law. The consultation with the federal society is essentially in the event if the Registrar decides to proceed against the board or any of its members under Section 78(1) of the Act and also decides to take action of supersession against them. If the Registrar decides to drop the proceedings, consultation with the federal society is not necessary. 3 It is also contended by the petitioner that there are several other complaints presented by the petitioner at subsequent point of time. Passing of the impugned order or rejection of instant petition, raising exception to the impugned order, would not be an impediment for considering the allegations made by the petitioner by tendering further applications. 4 No interference is called for in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp1137410