SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition challenging the Orber of supersession of the first petitioner Society and refusal of stay by the Second respondent. Heard both sides Rule returnable forthwith. By consent the petition is taken up for final hearing. Heard both sides on merit.

(2.) THE 6rst petitioner is a Co-operative Society and other petitioners are Chairman and Directors of the said Society It appears their term has expired and fresh elections are to take place. In the meanwhile the first respondent has passed the Order dated 17-5-1995 superseding the society on the ground that the term has expired and fresh elections cannot be held in fair manner and therefore appointed au Administrator to look after the management of the Society. Being aggrieved by the order of the supersession the petitioner challenged the same before the Appella'e Authority namely, the second in respondent Appeal No. 25 of 1995. During the peudency of the Appeal, an application was filed for stay of the Order of supersession After heating both the sides, the learned Appellate Authority viz. , the second respondent refused to grant any stay as per his Order on 6-6-1995. Being aggrieved by the order of the first respondent in superseding the society and the order of the second respondent in refusing to grant stay, the petitioners have come up with this writ petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned a. G P. I feel that the status quo has to be maintained. The order of snpersession has been challenged before the appropriate statutory authority. There are no allegations against by the petitioners about the mis-management or misappropriation etc. The main ground for superseding the society was that the term of the Committee bad expired The Act provides that even after the expiry of the period, the same committee can continue till fresh elections are held It is the duty of the Collector to hold eleciions. When the statutory Appeal is still pending the status quo of the Management of the society must be kept intact tilt the second respondent hears and dispose of the Appeal on merit Hence without going into the question whether the supersession is bad or not I feel that the management of the society by the present Chairman and the Directors should continue till the appeal is disposed of by the second respondent.