wp2955.11.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.2955/2011 Kolbaswami Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur and others -vs- Hon’ble Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Nagpur and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri N. A. Vyawahare, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sonak, learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4. Shri R. R. Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 28/06/2011. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 17/06/2011 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar i.e. the respondent No.4 herein, by which the appeal filed by the petitioners came to be rejected. The petitioners also challenge the order dated 23/03/2011 passed under Section 77 A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 by Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur i.e. respondent No.1 herein. The petitioner No.1 society is the Cooperative Housing Society and the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 herein claim to be the office bearers of the petitioner No.1 society, who claims to be elected in the Annual General Meeting held on 14/08/2008. The petitioner Nos.2 to 5 claimed that they have been conducting the affairs of the petitioner No.1 Society, since their election. wp2955.11.odt 2/4 The respondent No.3 herein, who belongs to another group, also claims to be a member of the Managing Committee, which was elected in the Annual General Meeting purportedly held on 10/07/2008 in which, according to the respondent No.3, 468 members participated. Hence, as can be seen, two groups are claiming to be the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 Society. Considering the said fact, the respondent No.1-Deputy Registrar issued a notice under Section 77 A of the Cooperative Societies Act for appointment of an Administrator on the petitioner No.1 Society. The said notice culminated in the order dated 23/03/2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar-respondent No.1, by virtue of it, an Administrator came to be appointed. Against the said order, the petitioners had filed an appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar-respondent No.4, that appeal came to be rejected by the second impugned order dated 17/06/2011. The Divisional Joint Registrar was of the view that in terms of the share capital of the petitioner No.1 Society, the elections were to be conducted as per the provisions of Rule 60(5) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 and both the groups have failed to demonstrate as to how the said Rule was adhered to. The Divisional Joint Registrar was also of the view that in view of two parallel Managing Committees who claimed to be the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 Society, and since the elections to the petitioner No.1 Society are due in July-August, 2011, it would be just and proper to appoint an wp2955.11.odt 3/4 Administrator for conduct the elections of the petitioner No.1 Society under the supervision of the said Administrator. Pursuant to the appointment of the Administrator, the Election Program was declared on 21st June, 2011 and the said Election Program is at the stage of objections to the voters list. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners by Shri Vyawahare, learned counsel for the petitioners that the holding of Elections prior to the term of the Managing Committee coming to an end was improper and illegal. It was further sought to be contended by Shri Vyawahare, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the notice under Section 77 A ought to have been served not only on the members of the Managing Committee, but also on the petitioner No.1 Society, which has not been done and for the said purpose relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in AIR 1984 Bombay 56 in the case of Ghatageppa Parreppa Mugeri and others -vs- M. R. Naik and others. Where it has been held that the notice contemplated is a general notice on the notice board and notice only to members of outgoing committee is invalid. The learned counsel submitted that it is not a case where the petitioner Nos.2 to 5, who are the Managing Committee, have not taken steps to hold the elections, as the elections are still not due and as and when the term of the Committee is to come to an end, the petitioners would take steps to hold the elections. In so far as the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, it is required to be wp2955.11.odt 4/4 noted that in the Audit Report several financial irregularities have been highlighted by the Auditors and the said irregularities are during the present tenure of the Managing Committee of the petitioners. It is in the said context that the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners would have to be considered. As indicated above, there is a serious dispute between two groups, who claim to be the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 Society on the one hand is the group of the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and on the other hand, it is the group led by respondent No.3 and considering the said dispute along with the Auditor’s Report, in my view, the Authorities were right in coming to a conclusion that no notice was required to be served on the society before proceeding under Section 77 A, as an emergent situation had arisen to protect the property of the society. Such a power is vested with the Authorities under Section 77 A (f) of the said Act. The judgment of the Division Bench in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would therefore have no application. In my view, the appointment of the Administrator in the conspectus of the facts as narrated above, does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court in its writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE KHUNTE