1 SSK/18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5246 OF 2010 Shri Siddhapur Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Bapuraya Ramgonda Chougule & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b. Mr. D. S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 8TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Bhosale, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. By the impugned order, the Hon’ble Minister of State for Co- operation stayed the order dated 23rd June, 2010 passed by the Respondent No.3- The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune. 2 3. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mangalvedha, by an order dated 13th May, 2010 appointed Administrator on Petitioner- Society under section 77- A read with section 73-H of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. The Administrator was appointed on the ground that the term of the Board of Managing Committee comes to an end on 5th May, 2010 and the Managing Committee failed to take steps for holding fresh elections. This order of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mangalvedha was stayed by Respondent No.3- The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune. The Hon’ble Minister of State for Co-operation at the instance of Respondent No.1 granted stay to the order of Respondent No.3- The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune as stated above. There is no dispute that the term of the earlier Managing Committee came to an end on 5th May, 2010. Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that thereafter, new election to the Managing Committee of the Petitioner-Society was held and new Managing Committee was elected. However, I find the submission is without any merit. Admittedly, the Society is a notified Society and therefore election is required to be held by the Registrar. Admittedly, the election to the Petitioner-Society was not held by the Registrar and therefore, the submission of the Petitioner that the election to the Managing Committee was held by the Society cannot be accepted. 3 4. The learned Counsel for the respective parties agree that the petition can conveniently be disposed of, by directing the Minister of State for Co-operation to hear the Respondent No.1’s revision expeditiously and within time bound limit. The petition, therefore, is dismissed by passing the following order : 1. The Hon’ble Minister of State for Co-operation in directed to hear and decide the Respondent Nos. 1’s Revision Application No.391 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 2. Needless to mention that the said revision shall be decided independently on its own merits and after given an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. (R. V. MORE, J.) 4 SSK/18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5246 OF 2010 Shri Siddhapur Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Bapuraya Ramgonda Chougule & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b. Mr. D. S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 8TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Bhosale, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. By the impugned order, the Hon’ble Minister of State for Co- operation granted stay to the order dated 23rd June, 2010 passed by the Respondent No.2. The learned Counsel for the respective parties agree that the petition can conveniently be disposed of, by directing the Minister of State for Co-operation to hear the Respondent No.1’s revision expeditiously and within time bound limit. The petition, therefore, is 5 dismissed by passing the following order : -2- 1. The Hon’ble Minister of State for Co-operation is directed to hear and decide the Respondent Nos. 1’s Revision Application No.391 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 2. Needless to mention that the said revision shall be decided independently on its own merits and after given an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. (R. V. MORE, J.)