1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2421 of 2008 (Krusnharao s/o. Dashrath Patmase and Ors. vs. Kolsa Khadan Kamgar Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Silewara Project, Nagpur and Ors.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D.D.Sinha and A.P.Bhangale, JJ. DATED : July 30, 2008. Heard Mr.S.K,.Tambde, Adv. for Petitioners and Mr.S.B.Ahirkar, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.2. In the instant petition, petitioner is seeking direction to quash and set aside the proceedings u/s. 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in view of provisions of Section 98 of the Act. 2 Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. Perused the provisions of Sections 88 and 98 of the Act. These two provisions are separate and distinct and operate in altogether different areas. Section 88 gives power to the Registrar to assess damages against the delinquent promoters and if the order is passed under 88 requiring the delinquent to repay or restore money or property etc. with interest and if such order could not be carried out, then recourse can be taken to the provisions of Section 98 of the Act. The provisions of these two sections are neither over-lapping nor inconsistent with each other. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for showing indulgence in the present petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj 3