1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3465/2008 Digrilal Choudhary and anr. ..vs.. Madhu Nagorao Sambare and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Thakare, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Tapadia, Adv h/f Mr. Quazi, Adv. for respondent nos. 2 to 7. Mr. Joshi, Advocate for respondent nos. 8 and 9. Mr. Kothari, A.G.P. for respondent no. 12. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 5 th DECEMBER, 2008 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that amendment to the bye-laws of the society ought to have been carried out in special general body meeting by 2/3rd majority. He states that on 31.03.2006, there was no general body meeting and it was the meeting of governing body. He invites my attention to the necessary documents for that purpose. He further states that in some other challenge, the proceeding arising out of the alleged general body meeting dated 31.03.2006 has been remitted back by the Jt. Charity Commissioner. The documents i.e. Annexures C and D clearly show that it was not special general body meeting on 2 31.03.2006 but then as Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Bhandara (Assistant Charity Commissioner) has not recorded any finding in terms of requirement of bye law no.42, I am not in a position to conclude the controversy at this stage itself. 3. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside and matter is remitted back to respondent no. 12- Assistant Registrar of Societies and Assistant Charity Commissioner, Bhandara; for taking fresh decision after considering with the requirements of bye law no. 42 and also notice dated 17.03.2006. The respondents are at liberty to raise appropriate defence before the said authority. Respondent no. 12 shall take the decision as early as possible and in any case by 28.02.2009. 4. The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale