1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6406 OF 2010 R.J.Dandavate & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.D.Thokade i/b Ms Savita Yadav for the petitioners Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P for respondent nos.1 to 3 Mr.Nagesh C. Upase- respondent no.5 in person present CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 23, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the 5th respondent appearing in person. Considering a limited controversy involved in the writ petition, the same need not be kept pending. Accordingly, the same is taken up for final disposal. The 5th respondent appearing in person has tendered written submissions and has prayed that petition be dismissed. He has also made oral submissions by reading his written submissions. 2 On 29th July 2010, an order has been passed under section 78 (1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1960) appointing Administrator of the Simaran Co- operative Housing Society Ltd.. The petitioners are claiming to be the members of the said society. An appeal has been preferred by the petitioners before the Hon ble Minister. The appeal is still pending. An averment made in the petition is that at the relevant time the Hon ble Minister was not available. 2 3 The learned A.G.P appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3 states that the appeal is still pending. On 11th August 2010, this Court granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). Substantive appeal against the drastic order of appointment of Administrator under section 78 (1) of the said Act of 1960 is pending before the Appellate Authority. Interests of justice will be served if the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Ad-interim relief granted under the order dated 11th August 2010 deserves to be continued till the appeal is decided. 4 The 5th respondent appearing in person has argued the matter on merits and has pointed as to how the order appointing the Administrator is legal. However, this issue will have to be gone into in the statutory appeal pending before the Appellate Authority. It will be unjust to both the parties if the said issue is gone into in this writ petition. 5 Hence, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order : i) The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the pending appeal on or before 16th September 2010. Till the disposal of the appeal, ad-interim relief granted on 11th August 2010 will continue to operate. ii)If the decision in the appeal is adverse to the petitioners, ad-interim relief granted earlier will continue to operate for a period of two weeks from the date on which order in appeal is communicated to the petitioners. iii)It is made clear that all contentions of the 3 parties and the contentions raised by the 5th respondent by filing written submissions are expressly kept open. iv)Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms. JUDGE