1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1200 OF 2011 (Prakash J. Bhisikar & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 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 & P.D. KODE, JJ. JUNE 28, 2011. Heard Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Fulzele, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2. The appeal filed by the petitioners challenging action under Section 78 of Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Board of Directors of Respondent No. 3 – Sangh, is pending before Respondent No. 1 along with prayer for interim relief made therein. The petitioners are the Directors of Respondent No. 3, who have been removed from that Board. Our attention has been invited to the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 7059 of 2010 on 16.08.2010 and orders dated 21.02.2011 in Writ Petition No. 839 of 2011. The perusal of said orders reveal that the appeals filed by those petitioners (Directors) from that region challenging very same action under Section 78 of the Act 2 and under Section 152 of the Act were then pending. This Court, therefore, expected the appellate authority to deal with said proceedings moved by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in the matter at the earliest. While adjourning the matter to a future date, the parties were directed to maintain status quo and the said petitioners were restrained from dealing with any financial issue in respect of Respondent No. 3 – Sangh. Shri Ghare, learned counsel is seeking similar relief from this Court. Shri Fulzele, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 states that he is still awaiting instructions. We find that the orders under Section 78 of the Act, by which the Board of Respondent No. 3 has been superseded, is one and the petitioners before Principal Bench of this Court, before Aurangabad Bench and before this Court have been removed by the very same order. The interim orders granted by the Principal Bench and by Aurangabad Bench cannot be given effect to until and unless the entire Board of Directors is permitted to exist and continue. A separate challenge in that respect by the petitioners is really uncalled for. In fact, even if directors may have filed separate appeals under section 152 of the Act, as the same are against only one order, those appeals need to be decided together. Hence, with similar interim directions, as 3 issued by Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No. 839 of 2011, we dispose of the present petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.