Although the petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by Regional Level Committee invalidating the resolutions regarding removal of the Manager and co-option of the petitioner no.2, but the only argument advanced in that regard is that the order is perverse without being able to show to the Court how the order is perverse. It is also noticeable that although the order was passed on 10.10.2017 and in pursuance thereof, the authorised controller was to convene the meeting of the General Body for getting the resolution passed by Committee of Management approved by the General Body but the petitioners maintained complete silence and did not challenge the order until the notice was issued for convening the meeting and in fact, after the meeting has already been held. The challenge, in fact, is addressed mainly to the notice convening the meeting of the General Body on the ground that ten days clear notice, as stipulated in the approved scheme of administration, had not been given. As observed above, the impugned notice is not addressed to the petitioners. Further, it is also not disputed before this Court that in pursuance of the impugned notice, meeting had already taken place. The
