1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3798 OF 2009 Dattatraya Balkrishna Jadhav & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Pune Division & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Vivek V. Salunke for the Petitioners. Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Prathmesh Bhorgude for Respondent No.4. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 19TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. : 1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by respondent No.1 under Section 152 of the MCS Act as well as the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune, i.e. respondent No. 2, by which an Administrator has been appointed for the Managing Committee. The petitioners were elected as the Managing Committee in pursuant to the elections held in 2006. Admittedly, the petitioners did not furnish bonds within 15 days, as required under section 73(1)(AB). Action was 2 initiated against the petitioners on the ground that they had committed certain irregularities and therefore a notice under section 78 of the MCS Act was issued to them. The petitioners were removed and thereafter by the impugned orders an Administrator was directed to take charge of the affairs of the society. The petitioners have now produced bonds which they claimed were furnished on 5th January, 2009. However, these bonds have been furnished pursuant to an election which was held on 31st December, 2008. That election was held under the aegis of the Managing Committee which could not have held office since it had not submitted bonds after it was elected in 2006. The learned Counsel for the respondents states that the petitioners’ contention that they have been elected in 2006 is factually incorrect since the Managing Committee has been functioning since 2000 without holding any elections. 2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that before appointing an Administrator the petitioners ought to have been given notice or at- 3 least been heard or reasons of the same should have been given to the petitioners. However, all these issues would not arise in this case since admittedly no bonds were furnished by the petitioners consequent upon the elections held in 2006. Therefore, they had no right to hold office after 15 days as held by the Judgment in the case of Assisi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [reported in 2007 (2) Bom.C.R. 403]. 3. In these circumstances, the Petition is rejected. 4. On the application made by the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the order of status-quo granted earlier shall continue for a period of two weeks. However, the petitioners shall not take any policy decision including those involving financial matters. ......