Dismissed

Rawalnath V.K.S. Seva Maryadit and Ors. v. the Assistant Registrar, Co-Op.Socy. and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Feb 2005WP/865/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order dismissed a writ petition filed in 1992 challenging a supersession order under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The court held the petition to be infructuous because the term of the superseded committee had long expired and subsequent elections were held, indicating loss of interest.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.

Rawalnath V.K.S. Seva Maryadit and Ors. Vs the… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.865 OF 1992

¶4

 Rawalnath V.K.S. (Vikas)
 Seva Maryadit Kumari & Ors. .. Petitioners.
 Vs.

¶5

 The Assistant Registrar
 Gadhinglaj and Ors. .. Respondents.

¶6

 Mr.S.L.Kapse for the petitioners.
 Mr.A.H.Palekar AGP for respondent nos.1, 3 and 5.

¶7

CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J.

¶8

DATED : 16TH FEBRUARY, 2005

¶9

 P.C.:

¶10

 . Heard Mr.Kapse, learned counsel for the
 petitioners and Mr.Palekar, learned AGP for
 respondent nos.1, 3 and 5.

¶11

 2. This petition was filed in 1992 against the
 order of supersession passed under section 78 of
 the Maharashtra Co-opertive Societies Act, 1960
 (for short "the Act"). While admitting the

¶12

 petition interim stay in terms of prayer clause (c)
 was granted by which the execution and operation of
 the impugned order dated 20.11.1991 was stayed.

¶13

 Mr.Kapse, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶14

 states that the petitioners are not in touch with
 him and he has no instructions as to what happened
 after 1992. Admittedly, the term of the then
 managing committee, which was superseded, got over

¶15

¶16

 long back and it seems that thereafter atleast two
 elections of the petitioner no.1 - society were
 held. Keeping that in view and considering the
 scheme of provisions contain in section 78 of the
 Act, in my opinion, nothing further survives in the
 instant writ petition and that may be the reason
 why Mr.Kapse is not getting any response from the
 petitioners. It seems that they have lost interest
 in the instant proceedings. In the circumstances

¶17

 this petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶18

(D.B.Bhosale, J.)

Rawalnath V.K.S. Seva Maryadit and Ors. v. the Assistant Registrar, Co-Op.Socy. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rawalnath V.K.S. Seva Maryadit and Ors. v. the Assistant Registrar, Co-Op.Socy. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.C. Dohare Vs the Estate Officer and Senior Divisional Engineer and Ors.

Iswarlal Kisanlal Agarwal Vs Nashik Patrakar Sahakari Gram Nirman Sanstha Ltd.

Shri Manoj Kumar Rajshekhar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri Bharma Monappa Patil. Vs Smt. Gangubai Ghalu Patil and Anr.

Sahyadri Vividh Karyakari S.(Vikas)Seva S.Marydt. Vs Shri Ramling Vividh Karyakari S.(Vikas)S.S.Marydt.

Trimurti Sahakari Co-Op.Dudh Utpadak Sanstha. Vs the Minister of State for Diary Development and Ors.