1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4312 of 2009 Hanmantappa Gangappa Ingalgi ..... Petitioner V/s. The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Solapur and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.P.S.Dani i/by Mr.I.M.Khairdi, for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Vagyani, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Surel S. Shah, for respondent Nos.4 to 8. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 29th June, 2010 P.C. 1. This petition takes exception to the notice dated 16-04-2009 issued by the respondent No.1, by which notice it is ordered that a meeting of the General Body is convened on 30-04-2009 for considering the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. The said notice has been challenged on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 57(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and also on the ground that the persons who were in the forefront of moving the motion were not eligible to do so as on the relevant date, they were no longer members of the managing committee as they had allegedly resigned. The respondents have filed their affidavits disputing the claims and 2 contentions of the petitioner, qua the said issue of non-compliance of Rule 57(A). It is not necessary for us to go into the said aspect, in the light of the order that we propose to pass. It appears that pursuant to the said requisition, a resolution containing the motion of no confidence, came to be passed in the meeting dated 30-04-2009 against the petitioner, by virtue of which the petitioner ceased to be a Chairman. The said development has taken place pending the above petition and in view of the ad-interim order, the said resolution has not been implemented. 2. Considering the challenge raised in the petition and also in view of the fact that the motion of no confidence has already been passed, though not implemented, since in our view, the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of filing a dispute under Section 91 of the said Act, for challenging the said resolution passed, we therefore, do not deem it fit to entertain this petition under our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings to challenge the resolution passed on 30-04-2009, including the challenge on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 57(A). Since an ad-interim order is operating in favour of the petitioner, restraining the Society from giving effect to the said resolution, by virtue of which the effect to the resolution has not been given till this date, the said ad-interim relief would continue 3 to operate for a further period of three weeks to enable the petitioner to file the said appropriate proceedings. It is made clear that this Court has not dealt with any of the issues raised in the petition and it is for the concerned authority to deal with the same in accordance with law and on their own merits. It is further clarified that though we have continued the ad-interim order, that would not entitle the petitioner to take any major policy decision including a decision which has a financial implications and the continuation of ad-interim order for a period of three weeks, would also not be construed as any reflection of our opinion on merits of the petitioner’s case. The Concerned authority would be free to decide the proceedings if any, filed by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )