1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR W.P.NO.2053/2010 Shri Ashok Motisav Mende and ors. ..vs.. Deputy Registrar, Co-op.Soc. & anr. W.P.NO.2478/2010 Shri Ashok Motisav Mende and ors. ..vs.. Deputy Registrar, Co-op.Soc. & anr. 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, J. DATED : JUNE 16, 2010. Heard Mr.Tambde, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Karmarkar, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 and Mr.Sonone, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2. In W.P.No.2053 of 2010, the petitioners have questioned order dated 27/1/2010 passed under Section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 appointing administrator and a subsequent order dated 15/4/2010 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act maintaining it. This court has issued notices on 28th April, 2010. In the meanwhile, the fresh election programme came to be published and that election programme dated 15/5/2010 has been questioned by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2478 of 2010. 2 The Submission in short of Advocate Tambde on behalf of the petitioners are that the misconduct allegedly committed by earlier Managing Committee are also included in show cause notice issued to the petitioners on 19/11/2009 and according to him, the show cause notices and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside only on that count, as non-application of mind is apparent. He further states that though violation of Section 73(1AB) has been noticed, that violation by itself cannot be fatal in the present matter. According to him, the requisite bond was furnished on 21/11/2007 and deficit court fee therein was made good on 14/1/2010. He, therefore, argues that only because the provisions have been complied with with some delay, the elections could not have been quashed and set aside. Mr.Sonare, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Advocate Karmarkar for other respondents have argued that non-compliance with provisions of law despite opportunity has been established on record in the present matter and as election is already announced, this court should not proceed further. I perused impugned orders. I find that the petitioner were elected on 29/10/2007 and they should have furnished the bonds by 14/11/2007. However, the bond is furnished by them on 21/11/2007. This bond is only on one stamp paper and having signature of all. It, therefore, does not meet requirements of law. Even after receipt of show cause notice, the lacuna was not cured though reply to it was filed on 5/12/2009. Individual bond with necessary stamp are furnished on 14/1/2010. In this situation, it is apparent that though the 3 petitioners were aware of non-compliance with statutory provision and a notice under Section 78(1) was already issued to them, they have not shown their bona fides by making amends immediately. During argument Advocate Tambde has relied upon on 1991 Cooperative Cases 397 (Dilip Purushottam Chitre etc. ..vs.. Sahitya Sahawas Cooperative Soci8ety Ltd. And others) wherein division Bench of this court has noticed that administrator under Section 78 cannot be appointed for the benefit of only one or two aggrieved members. Here, the administrator has not been appointed for the benefit of particular member but the action has been taken after noticing that all the elected members have failed to fulfill the requirements of law. In view of this evidence, it is not necessary for this court to consider other argument being raised by Advocate Tambde. With petitions are, therefore, dismissed . No costs. JUDGE chute