T P KUNHIRAMAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Vanarse, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondents 1 to 4, Mr.Udeshi waives notice for Respondents 5 and Mr.Rajure waives notice for Respondent No.7. In so far as Respondent No.6 is concerned, Mr.Udeshi as well as Mr.Rajure claim that they are representing the said Respondent. For the nature of order that I propose to pass in this Writ Petition, it is not necessary for me to dwell upon the contention as to who can legitimately represent Respondent No.6 before this Court.

(2.) AS short question is involved, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Petitioners, the Respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order in very casual manner, that too, without issuing notice to the Petitioners, nor considering the fact that the Revision Application filed by the Respondent No.5 was beyond limitation. Besides, the impugned order does not record any reason as to what was so imperative, so as to undo the position which obtained after the Respondent No.7 has taken charge of the affairs of Respondent No.6 Society on 27th May, 2003. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, therefore, submits that this is a fit case where the impugned Judgment and Order deserves to be set-aside. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the unreported decision of this Court dated 27th August 1993 in Writ Petition No.1932 of 1993 to support the conclusion reached by the two authorities below that the erstwhile Managing Committee which has been superseded by order passed by the Respondent No.4, had no authority to continue to remain in Office after the expiry of three years i.e. on or after 26th June 2002. On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent No.5 contends that there was more than one good reason for the Revisional Authority to grant interim relief as prayed in the Revision Application filed by the Respondent No.5. He submits that the question as to whether the application and interpretation of bye-law is concerned, that aspect can be adjudicated only by the Co-operative Court and the Deputy Registrar could not have assumed that power unto himself, which is the basis on which, the impugned Order has been passed, appointing Administrator in respect of the Respondent No.6 Society. He further submits that the order passed by the Appellate Authority was ex-parte and it overlooks the contention taken on behalf of the Society that the effect of amendment of Bye-law would enure to the benefit of the members of the managing Committee in Office at the relevant time. He submits that reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court to buttress that contention, but the same has not been considered by the Appellate Authority. According to him, therefore, no fault can be found with the conclusion reached by the Revisional Authority in granting interim relief as prayed for by the Respondent No.5 in his Revision Application. Moreover, he contends that the order as passed which is impugned in this Writ Petition is only an ad-interim order and this Court ought not to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.