Writ petition seeking mandamus for action against managing committee for non-submission of bonds under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Dismissed after respondent affidavit stated members had resigned and fresh elections were underway.
None; writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2588 OF 2009.
Bhupesh M. Rathod & Ors. V/s
Bhupesh M. Rathod & Ors. ..... ...Petitioners V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. ..... .....Respondents.
Mr.K.V.Tembe, Adv. for the petitioners.
Mr.L.T.Satlekar AGP for respondent No.1.
Mr.Vijay D. Patil, Adv. for the respondent No.3.
CORAM: J.N.PATEL ACTING C.J. AND B.R.GAVAI, J. 7th January, 2010.
PC:
The petitioners have filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to forthwith perform statutory obligations of taking action under section 78 Maharashtra Cooperatives Societies Act, 1960 against the executive Managing Committee. It is contention of the petitioners that the members of the managing committee had not submitted the bonds as required under section 73(1ab) of the said act and therefore they are not entitled to continue in the office.
1
managing committee have resigned from the office and fresh elections are being conducted for the managing committee.
therefore the same stands dismissed.
(ACTING C.J.)
(B.R. GAVAI, J.)
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondent No. 2 to take action under section 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 for non-submission of bonds.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhupesh M. Rathod & Ors.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
J.N. PATEL
B.R. GAVAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
