IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.547 OF 2009 Jayawantrao Gangadhar Suryavanshi & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. The Divisional Jt.Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.N.N.Bhadrashete for Petitioners. Ms.Uma Palsule Desai, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr.Atul Damle for Respondent No.5. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. APRIL 29, 2009. APRIL 29, 2009. APRIL 29, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The present Writ Petition challenges the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 4th March 2009 appointing Administrator in respect of Kadamgiri Complex Co-op.Housing Society Ltd. Mumbai for a period of three years, who in turn was : 2 : to hold election for constituting Managing Committee and hand over the charge to the newly elected Managing Committee. This order was passed in exercise of powers under Section 77-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on the ground that although the term of the erstwhile Managing Committee had expired on 11th September 2005, no elections were held to elect new members of the Managing Committee to be duly constituted after 11th September 2005. This decision has been confirmed by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 12th March 2009 in Appeal No.55 of 2009. Both these decisions are made subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition. 3. It is not in dispute that the term of the previous Managing Committee expired on 11th September 2005, however, the case of the Petitioner is that the finding recorded by the two Authorities below that no election was conducted, is error apparent on the face of the record. In that, the new Managing Committee was unanimously appointed by the General Body in the meeting held on 27th November 2005. The said meeting was attended by : 3 : the complainant Chandrakant Shetty as well as the present Respondent No.5 herein. Both are signatories to the Minutes of the said Meeting as recorded on pages 82 to 87 of the paper-book. According to the Petitioner, the Registrar had taken inspection of the records which position is stated in his communication dated 20th February 2009 at page 118. The grievance of the Petitioner is that inspite of the said record, the Authorities below have proceeded on the assumption that the Managing Committee was not duly constituted. Indeed, the finding recorded by the two authorities below will have to be upheld having regard to the fact that it is common ground that no Election Officer was appointed and steps as are required to be taken for electing the new Managing Committee were not resorted to by the Society. The rules as well as bye-laws which are binding on the Society and its members mandate that election should be held by appointing Election Officer and inviting applications of the prospective candidates who were interested in participating in the said Election. That procedure has not been followed at all. Merely because the General Body has approved the : 4 : nomination of some of the members as members of the Managing Committee cannot validate the action of the General Body, disregarding the requirement under the rules and the bye-laws. However, as the present Managing Committee through Counsel submit that they have no hesitation in following the required procedure, the appropriate course to my mind is to keep the order passed by the Registrar as confirmed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in abeyance for a period of eight weeks from today so that in the meantime, the Society may take recourse to necessary procedure for electing new Managing Committee. The Managing Committee of the Society shall nominate Election Officer who in turn shall ensure that the entire election process is completed within eight weeks from today. 4. Insofar as the grievance made by the Respondent No.5 in the affidavit filed before this Court, that raises disputed question regarding validity of the document relied by the Petitioner. That grievance will have to be enquired into in appropriate proceedings and need not be answered in the present Writ Petition. It will be open to the : 5 : Respondent No.5 to take out appropriate proceedings as may be advised in which all issues raised in the present affidavit in reply can be agitated and can be addressed after giving fair opportunity to all the parties. 5. It is once again made clear that this Order is not an expression of opinion on the questions raised by the Respondent No.5, which will have to be answered in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. 6. Petition disposed of on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.