1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8407 OF 2009 Mr. Vaibhav Diwakar More & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus Hon’ble Minister for Co-operation, Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents Shri P. S. Dani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri G. A. Tambe, Advocate for Respondent No.6. Shri S. D. Rayarikar, AGP. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 7th MAY, 2010. P.C.: Rule. In view of short point involved in the matter, by consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 and Respondent No.6 are the members of the Respondent No.8 – Co-operative Housing Society. The last election to the post of members of the Managing Committee of this Society was held in the year-2006. There is no dispute that the tenure of the said Managing Committee was of three years and same expired on 2 22nd April, 2009. By the order dated 2nd December, 2008, the Respondent No.3 passed an order under section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 thereby appointing Respondent No.5 as the Administrator on the Petitioner No.8-Co-operative Housing Society. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 being aggrieved by this order, filed an Appeal before Respondent No.2-Divisional Joint Registrar and challenged the order under section 78 passed by the Respondent No.3-Deputy Registrar. Initially, the Appellate Authority granted stay to the order under section 78 appointing an Administrator on Petitioner No.8- Society. The said Appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 22nd May, 2009. The Petitioner thereafter, preferred revision application but same was also dismissed and therefore, the present writ petition. 3. It is the specific contention of the Petitioners, that the tenure of the Managing Committee which came in power in the year 2006 was expired on 22nd April, 2009 and prior to dismissal of their appeal by the Appellate Authority, fresh elections to the Managing Committee were held on 3rd May, 2009 and the present Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 were re-elected as the members of the Managing Committee of the Petitioner No.8-Society. 4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.6 does not dispute above position. He submits that he has filed dispute No.312 of 2010 in Co- 3 operative Court No.2 at Mumbai under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 challenging the fresh election mentioned above. Since admittedly, fresh election to the Managing Committee of the Petitioner No.8-Society was held during the pendency of the Petitioner’s appeal before the Appellate Authority, the order under section 78 appointing Administrator on Petitioner No.8-Society will not survive. The Respondent No.2 though was made aware that fresh elections have been taken place, passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner’s revision. The said order in my view cannot stand scrutiny of law, in as much as same will amount to setting aside fresh elections in which Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 have been elected without any power. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained and therefore, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 5. The Co-operative Court No.2 in the interest of justice and facts and circumstances of the present case is directed to hear and dispose of the Dispute No.312 of 2010 filed by the Respondent No.6 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of this order. (R. V. MORE, J.)