Bombay High CourtWP/7115/2016dismissedrule discharged

Sai Gram Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Through Its President, Yavatmal And 2 Others v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary Ministy Of Co-Operation, Mumbai And 2 Others

2016-12-21Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

1/2 wp7115.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 7115 OF 2016 Sai Gram Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Mahagaon, Yavatmal and others -vsState of Maharashtra, thr.its Secretary and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. A.M.Ghare, counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. N.H.Joshi, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 21.12.2016.

In this writ petition, the petitioners have made the following prayers :- (A) Direct the Respondent No.1 and 3 to conduct the elections of the executive committee of the Respondent No.2, Bank on the strength of 30 executive committee members forthwith, subject to decision of the pending SLP No. (C) 25266-25267/2013 and subject to the decision of the W.P.No.1354/2013, OR (B) In the alternative direct the Respondent No.1 and 3 to conduct the elections of the executive committee of the Respondent No.2, Bank on the strength of 28 executive committee members forthwith, subject to decision of the pending SLP No. (C) 2526625267/2013 and subject to the decision of the W.P.No.1354/2013.

In effect, by making the said prayers and seeking a direction against the respondent Nos.1 and 3 to conduct the elections of the executive committee of the respondent No.2-Bank, the petitioners are trying to overcome the orders that are passed in Writ Petition No.1354 of 2013 and Special Leave Petition Nos. (C) 25266 and 26267 of 2013.

2/2 wp7115.16 The method adopted by the petitioners, for trying to overcome the orders that are passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this court by filing another petition does not appeal to us. The petitioners are free to avail an appropriate remedy, if so advised. The writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE