spb/- 1 wp6189-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6189 OF 2009 Shri Siddhivinayak Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Mydt. Talegaon ... Petitioner. V/s. Shri Pramod V. Ranade & Others. ... Respondents. ----- Mrs. Preeti Walimbe i/by Bhushan A. Walimbe for the Petitioner. Mr. Prasad Kulkarni i/by P.S. Dani for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Ajay D. Magadoor i/by S.S.Patwardhan for the Respondent No.3. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent no.1 has expired on 13th October, 2010. As his heirs have not been brought on record, the writ petition against respondent no.1 is dismissed. 2 In my view it would not be appropriate to entertain the writ petition for the reasons more than one. Impugned order was passed on 2nd April, 2008. The writ petition has been filed on 17th July, 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to explain the delay by submitting that the charge of the society was with the administrator and spb/- 2 wp6189-09.sxw the new managing committee took change only on 11th November, 2008. Even if this statement is accepted, still the delay between 11th November, 2008 to 17th July, 2009 is not satisfactorily explained. The petitioner is guilty of delay and latches. Further more, the impugned order does not take away the right of the petitioner as the Divisional Joint Registrar by the impugned order has given liberty to the Assistant Registrar Co- operative Societies to institute a fresh enquiry, if necessary. Thus a fresh enquiry can alway be held, if necessary. In my view, the impugned order substantially protects the interest of the petitioner society. 3 The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]