-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2010 O. M. Someshkhar & Others. ..Petitioners. Versus Pravin D. Thorat & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. A. S.Desai for the petitiones. Mr. P. S. Dani i/b Rajesh A. Tekale for R-1 to 4. Mr. R.M.Patne, AGP for R-5. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 9, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Dani, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Patne, learned AGP for respondent nos. 5 to 7. 2. Election to the managing committee of Shiv Parvati Co- operative Housing Society Limited was held and new managing committee was constituted by respondent no.5 by his order dated 14/5/2008. Respondent nos.1 to 4 are the members of the managing committee. 3. The petitioner filed a complaint before respondent no.5 making grievance that respondent nos.1 to 4 have not given Bond as contemplated under section 73(1AB) of the MCS Act. Respondent no.5 upon hearing representatives of the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 to 4 came to the conclusion that there are some irregularities regarding the execution of Bond submitted by respondent nos. 1 to 4. Respondent no.5 refused the prayer of the srp -: 2 :- petitioner to appoint Administrator under section 78. However, he directed fresh election for the managing committee of the society for the period 2009 – 2014 and appointed one Mr. Dipak Khandekar, Assistant Registrar as election officer. This order was challenged by respondent nos.1 to 4 before the Minister for Co-operation, Government of Maharashtra. The Minister quashed and set aside the order passed by respondent no.5 by his order dated 23/3/2010, which order is challenged in this writ petition. 4. The managing committee consisting of respondent nos. 1 to 4 was constituted on 25/5/2008 pursuant to the order dated 14/5/2008. Assuming that there are some irregularities regarding the compliance of provisions of section 73(1AB) of the MCS Act, i.e., furnishing of Indemnity Bond, in that case the action under section 78 of the said Act ought to have been taken. Respondent no.5 by directing fresh election has impliedly set aside the election/ constitution of the managing committee. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Minister was justified in passing the impugned order. I do not see any reason to interfere with the said order in my writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)