1 WP,667/2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 667 OF 2010 Rajendra Damodar Sawant & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. ..... Mr. Amol K. Tembe, for the Petitioners. Ms. S.M. Dandekar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. M.R. Phal, for Respondent No.3. Ms. Sunita Sonawane, for Respondent No.4,5, and 8. Mr. Mahesh Menon, for the Intervener. --- CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7th JULY. 2010. P.C. 1] The petitioners before this Court are the members of respondent no.3-Co-Operative Hsg.Scy. Ltd duly registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960[in short ‘the said Act’]. The second respondent is a officer appointed under the said Act to take appropriate action if he comes across violation and/or breaches of the said Act and Rules by the members/officer bearers of Co-Operative Societies like the respondent no.3-society. 2 WP,667/2010 2] The petitioners had made a complaint dated 25.11.2009 complaining that the second respondent should initiate steps under section 78 read with section 73(1AB) of the said said Act and to take appropriate action because respondent nos.4 to 8 have failed to execute the bond contemplated by the sections in question. 3] A show cause notice dated 18.12.2009 has been issued by the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies(i.e. 2nd respondent). However, the grievance of the petitioners is that the matter has not proceeded beyond issuance of show cause notice. The second respondent has failed to take any action against these members and therefore the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying issuance of appropriate writ or direction to the authority to act in accordance with law. 4] Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the petition can be disposed of with a direction to the second respondent/competent authority to act in furtherance of the subject show cause notice and complete the inquiry initiated by it within three months from today. In other words, the authority should 3 WP,667/2010 take appropriate action in pursuance of the show cause notice within this period, after hearing the affected parties. 5] We have expressed no opinion on the merits of the controversy, and particularly whether there is any violation of the statutory provision in question, and all contentions in that behalf are kept open. 6] Petition stands disposed of with above directions. No costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.