1 wp10521.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10521 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18271 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for intervenor. 1. In view of the avernments made in Civil Application no. 18271 of 2010, the same is allowed and the applicant is permitted to intervene in the Petition. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has earlier pointed out that the society has no objection for re-audit but expenditure therefor should not required to be shouldered by it. Matter was then adjourned to enable intervenor to find out whether intervenor, on whose complaint the action is taken, is ready and willing to bear that expenditure. 3. Today, Advocate Shri.Kulkarni appearing for 2 wp10521.10 intervenor states that the intervenor never sought re-audit and relies upon the provisions of Rule 74 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, to urge that that rule contemplates recovery of expenditure only from the society. Learned A.G.P. points out that because of the complaint of intervenor the direction was issued but then intervenor has been asked to shoulder expenditure. He states that if the intervenor is not ready and willing to shoulder that expenditure there is no possibility of re- audit. In the alternative, he also points out that independently the action under Section 89(A) of the M.C.S. Act is also ordered against the petitioners and hence as the more comprehensive measure is already resorted to, re-audit as such is not necessary. 4. In this situation, it is apparent that the accounts of the petitioner society are not being re-audited by the respondent. The intervenor has also not sought any such re-audit. 5. Hence, with liberty to the petitioners to approach again if any cause of action in this respect arises. Present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 10.02.2011 gas/wp10521.10