1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5249 /2010 (Ganesh Gite vs. Res.Dy.Collector) WRIT PETITION NO. 5250 /2010(Shri Vijay Dhok vs. Res.Dy.Collector) WRIT PETITION NO. 5251 /2010(Manikrao Bansod vs. Res.Dy.Colector) WRIT PETITION NO. 5252 /2010(Shashikant Mangale vs. Res.Dy.Collector) WRIT PETITION NO. 5253 /2010( Sau.Babytai Rohankar vs. Res.Dy.Collector) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 30, 2010. Heard Advocate A A Naik, learned counsel for respective petitioners; Advocate A.S.Manohar, for respective respondent no.5 and the learned AGP for respective respondents 1 to 5. Advocate Kalmegh informed that respondent no.6 has taken papers back from him and he has given his “no objection” to them. In the backdrop of the earlier order dated 27th October 2010, Advocate Naik points out that the petitioners have been heard and respondent no.1 Collector has passed fresh orders on 11.11.2010 retaining the name of respondent no.5 on record and deleting the names of the petitioners. His contention is this has not been done by “like resolution” as envisaged in Rule 5 sub- rule (2) of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committees Rules, 1971. Respective counsel appearing for respondents state that in terms of Section 76 a special general body 2 meeting was convened and in that meeting name of respective respondent no.5 has been cleared as representative of respondent no.-6 society. I have perused the papers and also earlier order passed by me in the matters on 27th October, 2010. The grievance then made about opportunity of hearing stands redressed because orders dated 11.11.2010 are passed by respondent no.1 after hearing the respective petitioners as also respondent no.5. The only question is whether resolution of special general body meeting can be treated as “like resolution”. Learned counsel has contended that respective petitioners have been nominated as representatives in annual general body in the meeting conducted in the year 2009 that and that has been approved again in annual general body meeting conducted in 2010. If the contention of petitioners is to be accepted, it is apparent that change in representative is rendered impossible till holding of next annual general body meeting i.e. at least for a period of 12 months. That does not appear to be the mechanism contemplated in rule 5 sub-rule (2). The express language shows that the representative can be changed by respective societies by passing appropriate resolution and such change is possible till seven days before the date appointed by Collector under Rule 16 for making nominations. Thus, there cannot be always annual general body meeting. Like 3 resolution, therefore, at least in present facts has to be a resolution as earlier one i.e. by general body. I therefore do not find substance in the contention being raised in the petitions. The petitions are, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE sahare.