JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Heard Shri R.N. Dhorde for the petitioner, Shri Kishor Patil for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri N.B. Khandare for the respondent No. 4. 2. Petitioners are the members of the Managing Committee of Osmanabad Zilla Doodh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit. They were served with a Notice dated 24-7-1995 that they have become disqualified by virtue of provisions of section 73-FF of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for not having refunded the advance taken by them within a period of 30 days and they were asked to show cause as to why the order of disqualification should not be passed against them under section 78. 3. In the reply, the fact that an advance was taken by them and it was repaid after a period of 30 days was admitted but what was contended is that the repayment was before the issuance of Notice of show cause. The explanation was not accepted by the Divisional Deputy Registrar, Milk, Aurangabad and an order of disqualification under section 78-1(a) came to be passed against them on 11-9-1995. An Appeal was preferred against this order before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Milk, Worli, Bombay and this appeal came to be dismissed on 3-11-1995. This writ petition challenges the said order of disqualification and dismissal of the appeal so far as the petitioners are concerned. 4. Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Counsel for the petitioners, firstly contended that merely because the anamat or the advance taken by the members of the Society is not returned within 30 days, he does not disqualify and what is required by law is that even after the service of the notice on him, he must have repaid the amount of anamat within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. 5. The plain reading of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (l) of section 73-FF will negative the submission of Shri Dhorde. 5. The plain reading of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (l) of section 73-FF will negative the submission of Shri Dhorde. The Clause (c) runs as under: (c) in the case of any Society,- (i) a member who has taken anamat or advance; or (ii) a member who purchased any goods or commodities on credit or availed himself of any services from the Society for which charges are payable; and fails to repay the full amount of such anamat or advance or pay the price of such goods or commodities or charges for such service, after receipt of notice of demand by him from the concerned society or within thirty days from the date of withdrawal of anamat or advance by him or from the date of delivery of goods to him or availing of services by him, whichever is earlier; It is clear that the law does not require that special notice should be given to the person who does not repay the full amount of the anamat or advance or pay price of such goods or commodities received by him from the Society or charges of such services rendered by the Society towards him either after the notice of demand by him from the concerned Society or within 30 days from the date of withdrawal of anamat or advance by him from the date of the delivery of goods or availing of the services by him, whichever is earlier. Therefore, in any case, anamat or the price of the goods received or the charges of the services remained unpaid by a member for a period of more than 30 days and if the bye-laws so prescribe or a notice is served on him, then he is required to pay it even before 30 days or lesser period which may have been prescribed by law, period of 30 days from the date anamat is withdrawn or received or instructions is received or services are accepted. 6. In the instant case, admittedly, petitioner No. 1 has taken advance of Rs. 4,000/- on 6-5-1995 and petitioner No. 2 has taken an advance of Rs. 2000/- on 12-5-1995 and Rs. 1000/- on 15-5-1995 and these advances were repaid on 10-7-1995, the date which is beyond the period of 30 days from the date of the withdrawal of the amount. Therefore, clearly they are in default. 7. 4,000/- on 6-5-1995 and petitioner No. 2 has taken an advance of Rs. 2000/- on 12-5-1995 and Rs. 1000/- on 15-5-1995 and these advances were repaid on 10-7-1995, the date which is beyond the period of 30 days from the date of the withdrawal of the amount. Therefore, clearly they are in default. 7. Next contention which was advanced by Shri Dhorde is that there is no effective consultation with the federal Society inasmuch as only copy of notice which was served on the petitioner was sent to the petitioner Society and sufficient material was not placed before the federal Society. In support of this contention, Shri Dhorde relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of (Suresh Dyandeo Khumkar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, 1987 Mah.L.J. 474 : 1987(3) Bom.C.R. 211 . It is true that time and again this Court has pointed out that the consultation with the federal Society as prescribed under section 78 is not to be an empty formality and needs to be an effective consultation. But what material would be sufficient to hold that there was an effective consultation with the federal Society defers from case to case. If the case is so simple that the facts stated in the notice itself would be sufficient for the federal Society to express its opinion, if it chooses to, then other material would not be required. But if the facts are so that it is necessary to consider other record, then the submission of such record shall be necessary for the federal Society to give its opinion. We cannot lay down a yardstick of universal application in such matter. If the facts are complicated and it is not possible to gather all the relevant facts from the notice itself, then merely sending copy of the notice to the federal society would not be sufficient but if the facts are simple, the case would be otherwise. 8. In the instant case, I find that the notice itself points out that anamat was withdrawn by the petitioners on 16-5-1995, 12-5-1995 and 15-5-1995 and this anamat was of Rs. 4000/, Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- and this was repaid by them on 10-7-1995 the date which was beyond 30 days and this fact was not disputed. 8. In the instant case, I find that the notice itself points out that anamat was withdrawn by the petitioners on 16-5-1995, 12-5-1995 and 15-5-1995 and this anamat was of Rs. 4000/, Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- and this was repaid by them on 10-7-1995 the date which was beyond 30 days and this fact was not disputed. No further material was necessary to be placed before the federal Society whether they choose to reply or not, there is sufficient compliance of section 78(1). Therefore, no interference is called for. The writ petition is summarily rejected. 9. There was stay granted by the Divisional Joint Registrar to the disqualification of the petitioners. This stay is continued for a further period of 4 weeks at the request of the petitioners' Counsel. The copy, if applied for, is expedited to be given within one week. Though the petitioners may continue to be members of the Managing Committee by virtue of this interim order, they shall not take any policy decision and will not subscribe to any transfer of property of the Society. Petition dismissed.