1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1961/2008 Dr.Paresh M.Desai & Anr. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents Mr.Paresh Desai ,petitioner, in person Mr.A.S.Gadkari ,APP,for State,Respondent no.8 Mr.Narayankumar,for respondent no.2 to 7 CORAM: S.B.Mhase , & R.V.More ,J.J. DATED : November,11th ,2008. P.C. 1] Heard. 2] The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar,refusing the permission to prosecute the managing committee members of Golden Nest Phase III Chandra Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.. The respondents are the members of the managing committee .The said managing committee was superseded u/s 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act on the basis of inspection report dated 14/11/2005 by order dated 2/1/2008. Thereafter it appears that said managing committee has passed 2 resolution on 6/1/2008 and thereby decided that the said managing committee has to challenge the order u/s 78 and on that basis the appeal has been filed before the Divisional Jt.Registrar at Navi Mumbai. The grievance of the petitioners is that once the managing committee is superseded it has no power to hold the General Body meeting or Special Body and managing committee Meetings and under these circumstances they have held illegal managing committee meeting and filed appeal . The grievance is that the said resolution is false and fabricated and therefore,the managing committee is required to be prosecuted and for that purpose the complaint was lodged . But since the police has not done anything the petitioners filed an application u/s 146 and 148 of Co-operative Societies Act before the Divisional Jt. Registrar to prosecute them since the above resolution is fabricated one. The question is that only because the order has been passed u/s 78,that does not mean that the managing committee of the society has been superseded .Till the day on which the Administrator takes the charge of the society the managing committee remains in to office .The petitioner has not stated that the administrator has taken the charge of the society. Apart from this as the managing committee has been superseded the members have lost their position in the society. They are individually entitled to 3 file an appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar and since the matter u/s 78 is in respect of the rights of the persons who are in the managing committee they are supposed to protect their office by spending money out of their own pocket and they cannot spend any amount from the society.Only in order to over come this situation such resolutions are passed , but it is well settled position that whenever the question arises of protecting individual office of the person in the managing committee the said person is expected to spend money out of his own pocket and not from the society and in view of this the respondents while prosecuting the matter before the Divisional Joint Registrar are not entitled to spend money out of society's funds . However,they can continue their appeal by spending money out of their own pocket. 3] So far as rejection of the application for sanction to prosecute is concerned ,the petitioners have already filed separate writ petition before the Appellate Side of this Court and therefore, we refrain to entertain this petition. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (R.V.More,J.) (S.B.Mhase, J.)