JUDGMENT :- Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 21st April, 2006 passed by respondent No. 1 Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Akola appointing Administrator for managing the affairs of a cooperative housing society by name "Gajanan Prathhamik Shikshak Sahakari Gruhanirrnan Sanstha Ltd., Akola registration number 457 by superseding its managing committee under section 77(A)(2) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act for short), for period of six months or till constitution of new managing committee, whichever happens earlier. Other prayer is to permit Election Officer appointed by Society to complete elections in accordance with election programme published on 19-4-2006. This Court has issued notice on 3-5-2006 and on 9-5-2006, this Court, after hearing learned Advocates for parties found that observations made in impugned order and admitted facts do not call for any action in terms of clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of sub-section (1) of section 77A. This Court therefore directed learned AGP to take instructions as to why petition should not be heard and disposed of at motion stage only on 12th May, 2006. On 12th May, AGP could not report any instructions and hence interim relief as per prayer clause (B) in writ petition came to be granted. By virtue of this interim order, impugned order dated 21st April, 2006 and all consequences arising from it were suspended and Election Officer was permitted to continue with election programme. It appears that one Motiram Gangaram Thombre, claiming himself to be also the President of abovementioned Society moved application vide Civil Application 3049/2006 for intervention and Civil Application 305012006 for vacation of this interim order or for appropriate action. Both these applications were allowed to be withdrawn after hearing all learned Advocates with liberty to said applicant to file appropriate proceedings on 20-5-2006. Thereafter very same person viz. Shri Thombre has filed two C.As. vide 3071 and 3072 with same prayers. 2. Petitioner has also moved C. A. 3531/2006 stating that as per interim orders of this Court, Election Officer has held elections and again petitioner has been elected as President of Society.· He therefore sought direction against respondent No.2 Co-operative Officer to handover records of Society to him and to dispose of writ petition accordingly because of this development. This application along with two C.As. This application along with two C.As. 3071 and 307212006 was considered by this Court on 12-9-2006 and it was noticed that present petitioner Shriram Bute as also proposed intervener Shri Thombre were both claiming to be President of Society and hence, both of them were directed to produce on record necessary documents or affidavits that after 24-10-2004 anyone of them has been functioning as President. Parties have accordingly filed affidavits and documents. Accordingly, the matter was heard from time to time and finally on 20-10-2006. Respondent No. I has also filed its reply on 18-7-2006 justifying the action taken. 3. Accordingly I have heard Advocate P. C Madkholkar with Advocate D. Gupta for petitioner, learned AGP Shri Mujumdar for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Advocate V. P. Panpalia for Shri Thombre. Considering the arguments, prayers made in CA 3071 of 2006 are granted. Accordingly, Mr. Thombre is permitted to be added as respondent No.3 and Advocate Panpalia to carry out necessary amendment in petition. Everybody is heard on CA 3072/2006. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that this Court has already held that section 77 A has no application in the facts of present case and therefore only petitioner was permitted to complete the process of election which was already undertaken when respondent No. 1 appointed Administrator upon Society. He states that said election programme was required to be revised a little because of time spent between appointment of Administrator and order of this Court permitting Society to proceed further with elections. Revised election programme was given due publicity through newspaper and thereafter, election has been completed. In the circumstances, because of holding of elections there is no question of appointment of Administrator now and hence, CA 3531/2006 of petitioner needs to be allowed by directing respondent No.2 to handover records to petitioner and Rule needs to be made absolute in writ petition accordingly. He has also placed on record brief written notes of argument for convenience of Court. On merits, he states that the order impugned could not have been passed behind back of petitioner and without hearing managing committee. He further states that there was no emergency whatsoever to take such drastic step by ignoring first proviso to section 77 A (1), particularly when election programme was already on. On merits, he states that the order impugned could not have been passed behind back of petitioner and without hearing managing committee. He further states that there was no emergency whatsoever to take such drastic step by ignoring first proviso to section 77 A (1), particularly when election programme was already on. He has relied upon judgment of this Court in case of Ghatageppa Parreppa Mugeri vs. M. R. Naik, reported at 1983 Mh.L.J. 984 = AIR 1984 Born 56 and Suresh Ambadasrao Warpurkar vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported at 1997(1) All MR 335. He has not objected to participation of Shri Thombre in the hearing of writ petition. Learned AGP Shri Mujumdar on the other hand contends that interim order of stay has been passed on 12-5-2006 because respondents could not impart any instructions as directed by this Court. According to him, affidavit filed by respondent No.1 on 18-7-2006 is sufficient to sustain order made under section 77A of MCS Act. He points out those facts and states that because of infighting between group of present petitioner Shriram and Mr. Thombre, fair and proper elections to elect managing committee for period of five years from June, 2006 onwards were found to be not feasible and in view of admitted material available on record, respondent No. 1 found it imperative to immediately appoint Administrator. He argues that action taken is within four comers of law and there are no mala fides. He states that elections taken by petitioner Shriram are not in accordance with law and with concurrence of respondents and hence, alleged newly elected managing committee cannot be permitted to take over the society in present petition. He urges that all points are open for consideration of this Court and by passing interim orders, Court has not sealed or foreclosed arguments on merits. He therefore seeks dismissal of writ petition with costs. Advocate V. P. Panpalia states that Shriram is and was never President of Society. He invites attention to entire previous litigation between group represented by Shriram and Mr. Thombre before Co-operative Court or Appellate Court or before this Court. He states that admittedly Mr. Thombre has been elected as president of Society in June, 2001 for period of 5 years and petitioner has not demonstrated that Mr. Thombre has ceased to be so in accordance with law in the meanwhile. Thombre before Co-operative Court or Appellate Court or before this Court. He states that admittedly Mr. Thombre has been elected as president of Society in June, 2001 for period of 5 years and petitioner has not demonstrated that Mr. Thombre has ceased to be so in accordance with law in the meanwhile. He argues that Shriram has tried to foist himself as President of Society contrary to law and this lead to litigation before various forums between parties. According to him, stand of Shriram that Mr. Thombre has been removed from the post of President of Society on 11-10-2004 itself reveals ulterior designs and motives on his part. He further states that as Mr. Thombre has not been removed, there was no vacancy against which Shriram could have shown his election on 24-10-2004. He places reliance upon Division Bench judgment of this Court between Kerbaji Maroti Rao Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 1988 Mh.L.J. 157, to substantiate his argument. He further states that because of this, Shriram started posing as president of Society after 24-10-2004 and all this is evidenced in various Co-operative disputes and in correspondence with co-operative department. He states that Mr. Thombre also appointed Election Officer in April, 2006 to complete election process of Society before due date i.e. June, 2006. Shriram also did same thing and in this background, respondent No. 1 had no option but to pass impugned order. According to him, there is no jurisdictional error or perversity in the matter and no legal right of Shriram has been violated. He therefore states that case law relied upon by petitioner is totally irrelevant in this background and writ petition needs to be dismissed. Shriram has misled this Court by posing himself to be President of Society and succeeded in obtaining interim orders. He contends that Shriram cannot be allowed to hijack Society through the process of this writ petition and he argues that election programme allegedly dated 19-4-2006 was never published as required by bye laws or election rules of Society. It is his case that said election programme has been fabricated only to influence this Court into passing as interim order staying appointment of Administrator. Petitioner therefore deserves no sympathy and his writ petition needs to be dismissed because of his· wrongful conduct. 4. It is his case that said election programme has been fabricated only to influence this Court into passing as interim order staying appointment of Administrator. Petitioner therefore deserves no sympathy and his writ petition needs to be dismissed because of his· wrongful conduct. 4. Before appreciating the factual matrix, it would be proper to note provisions of section 77 A of MCS Act and its ingredients. "77-A. Appointment of members of committee, new committee or Administrator, where there is failure to elect member, to constitute committee or where committee does not enter upon office. 4. Before appreciating the factual matrix, it would be proper to note provisions of section 77 A of MCS Act and its ingredients. "77-A. Appointment of members of committee, new committee or Administrator, where there is failure to elect member, to constitute committee or where committee does not enter upon office. (1) Where the Registrar is satisfied that, (1-a) a provisional committee has failed to make necessary arrangements for holding election for the constitution of the first committee, before the expiry of its term as specified in sub-section (1-A) of section 73 :) (a) at the first constitution of the committee of any society there is a failure to elect all or any of the members of the committee: (b) the term (or extended term as the case may be,) of the committee of any society or 'of any of its members has expired or for any other reason election is held and there is a failure to elect all or any of the members required to fill the vacancies; (c) any committee is prevented from entering upon office; (d) a new committee has failed to enter upon office on the date on which the term of office of the existing committee expired; or (e) a new committee cannot for any reason be constituted before the expiry of the term of office of the existing committee; (f) where more than one group of persons in a society is claiming to be elected as the committee members and proceedings in respect thereof have been filed in the Co-operative Court; the Registrar may, either suo motu or on the application of any office of the society, by order appoint (i) any member or members of the society to be the member or members of the Committee to fill the vacancies; (ii) a committee, consisting of not more than three members of the society; or one or more administrators, who need not be members of the society, to manage the affairs of the society till a new committee enters upon office; Provided that, before making such order, the Registrar shall publish a notice on the notice board at the head office of the society, inviting objections and suggestions with respect to the proposed order within a period specified in the notice and consider all objections and suggestions received by him within that period; Provided further that, it shall not be necessary to publish such notice in any case where Registrar is satisfied that immediate action is required to be taken or that it is not reasonable practical to publish such notice. (2) The committee or administrator so appointed shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may, from time to time, give, have power to discharge all or any of the functions of the committee or of any officer of the society and taken all such action as may be required to be taken in the interests of the society. (3) The Committee or administrator so appointed shall hold office for period of six months from the date of assuming the management of the society and shall make necessary arrangements for constituting a new committee within the said period and for enabling the new committee including any new committee referred to in Clause (f) of sub-section (1), which is determined by the Court to have been legally elected, to enter upon office. Provided that, if a new committee is not, or cannot be constituted at the expiry or termination of the term of office of the committee or administrator, for any reason beyond the control of the committee or administrator, the term of office of the committee or administrator, as case may be, shall be deemed to be extended, until the new committee is duly constituted. (4) The Registrar shall have the power to change the committee or any or all members thereof or any or all the administrators appointed under sub-section (1) at his discretion even before the expiry of the period specified in the order made under sub-section (1). (5) The provisions of sub-section (2A) of section 78 shall apply mutatis mutandis for fixation of remuneration to be paid to the members or administrators appointed under sub-section (1). " This provision has been explained by the Division Bench of this Court in Hanuman Dudh Vyavasaik Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2002(5) Mh.L.J. 107 = 2001(8) LJ Soft 128 or 2001(3) BCR 505 as under ;- "13. The analysis of the provisions of section 77-A of the Act shows that where the Registrar is satisfied that any of the circumstances as set out in Clause (1-0) to (f) exist he has the powers either suo motu or on the application of any officer of the society to appoint any member or members of the society to be the members of the committee to fill the vacancies under sub-clause (i). Whereas under sub-clause (ii) thereto he is empowered to appoint a committee of not more than three members of the society or one or more administrators who need not be members of the society, to manage the affairs of the society till the new committee enters upon office, However, these powers are governed by the procedural limitations as set out in both the provisos thereunder. The first proviso states that before making such an order, the Registrar shall publish a notice on a notice board at the head office of the society inviting objections and suggestions with respect to proposed order within a period specified in the notice and consider all objections and suggestions received by him within that period. Whereas, the second proviso states that it shall not be necessary to publish such a notice in any case where the Registrar is satisfied that immediate action is required to be taken or that it is not reasonably practical to publish such a notice. This procedure as laid down under the first proviso is mandatory and the exception thereto is set out in the second proviso, This Court had an occasion to deal with the interpretations of the procedural aspects as set out under section 77-A and for the satisfaction of the Registrar in the case of Ghatageppa Parreppa Mugeri and others vs. M. R. Naik and others, 1983 Mh.L.J. 984, a Division Bench of this Court observed thus: "One of the important requirement of section 77-A (1) is in the first proviso thereto under which the Registrar has to invite objections and suggestions with respect to the proposed order to be made. The proviso is a salutary provision where the point of view of the members of the Managing Committee as to why in a given case order should or should not be made has to be placed before the authority concerned and has, to be considered by him before he decides to act or not to act under section 77-A(1) of the Act. The power to dispense with the statutory requirement of notice inviting objections as mentioned in the second proviso in case immediate action is required to be taken, is an extraordinary one which cannot be exercised as a matter of course. The power to dispense with the statutory requirement of notice inviting objections as mentioned in the second proviso in case immediate action is required to be taken, is an extraordinary one which cannot be exercised as a matter of course. When the exercise of such a power is challenged, the Assistant Registrar is bound to put on record the circumstances which according to him justified non-compliance or dispensing with the requirement of the first proviso. Super session of .an existing managing committee by an administrator is not something which concern only the members of the managing committee inasmuch as It vitally affects the rights of the members of a co-operative society to have the business of their society being run by the elected members of the managing committee and that is why a general provision of publication of notice on the notice board at the head office of the society is made. If recourse has to be taken to the extraordinary powers and dispensing with a notice on a wrong assumption that the members of the outgoing committee of the society only are entitled to the notice, it is sufficient to vitiate the action taken by the Assistant Registrar on the assumed ground that the situation warranted an immediate action. " A similar point was also considered by yet another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandralok Sahakari Gruha Nirman Sanstha Ltd., Shegaon vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Shegaon, 1992(1) Mh.L.J. 1118 and while reiterating the earlier view in the case of "Ghatageppa Parreppa Mugeri" (supra), the Court examined the record as well as reasons given by the authority invoking powers under section 77-A of the Act and it was held that so far as the reasons given by the Registrar are not perverse, it is not open to this Court to interfere with the impugned order and mere failure to publish the notice would not be a ground to hold that the reasons are perverse. 14. On the backdrop of these legal pronouncements and procedural aspects as set out in section 77-A of the Act, it is imperative to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order. The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 briefly sets out the reasons in support of the impugned order in para No. 6 therein the following words: "6. The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 briefly sets out the reasons in support of the impugned order in para No. 6 therein the following words: "6. I say and submit that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3631/1999 had filed S.L.P. in the Supreme Court of India, challenging the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. The S.L.P. was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26-9-2000 and therefore, the protection to the managing committee members of the respondent No.4 had expired and the respondent No.2 had taken the charge of the affairs of the respondent No. 6 Sangh. I say that looking to the day-to-day activities of the Sangh and more particularly when the Milk is a perishable good, order under section 77-A of the said Act is passed for the day-to-day management of administration of the Sangh. " (Emphasis supplied). It is, thus, abundantly clear that the only reasons in support of the order is the necessity to handle the day to day activities of the management of the Sangh, more particularly, when the Milk is a perishable item. There is nothing in the affidavit explaining the circumstances or the reasons as to why the notice mandated in the first proviso to section 77-A (1) of the Act was dispensed with. In addition, no explanation has come forward making out a case for satisfaction of the requirement of the second proviso therein. When there are no reasons given in respect of the order passed by exercising statutory provisions, the question of examining the perversity or validity of the reasons does not arise. Even a plain reading of the order does not give any reasons as to why the notice, as required under the first proviso to section 77-A (1), was not given before the said order was passed. As observed little earlier, the impugned order appears to be plain and simple, an administrative order passed by the respondent No. 5 and by no stretch of imagination, it could be even read as an order by application of mind or by following the procedure as set out in section 77-A of the Act. " 5. Last admitted elections of Society have been held on 24-6-2001 and in it Mr. Thombre has been elected as President while Shriram has been elected as managing committee member. Shri Gorle was elected as Secretary of Society. " 5. Last admitted elections of Society have been held on 24-6-2001 and in it Mr. Thombre has been elected as President while Shriram has been elected as managing committee member. Shri Gorle was elected as Secretary of Society. One Wasudeo has been elected as managing committee member while Smt. Kamal Badhe has been elected as vice president. This position is not in dispute at least till 31-3-2003 when one Mr. More was elected as Secretary as Shri Gorle is stated to have resigned and this Mr. More was admitted as member of managing committee on 24-2-2003. Shri Thombre on 22-3-2003 issue notice to Shriram that he was not member of managing committee as per bye law and hence restrained Shriram from participating in the meeting. He was expelled in view of resolution dated 13-1-1991 of managing committee. On 1-4-2003, Shriram filed dispute number 417/2003 before Co-operative Court, Amaraoti and challenged notice dated 22-3-2003 and in it he also challenged legality of meeting dated 313-2003. Because of inter-se disputes, on 10-9-2003 Co-operative Department froze bank account of Society and it remains frozen even today. On 16-4-2003 only two members of managing committee passed resolution and appointed Shri Vilas Deshmukh in place of Shriram. This dispute was decided by Co-operative Court on 15-10-2003 and it was declared that meeting dated 31-3-2003 and business therein was illegal. Resolution dated 16-4-2003 was also found to be illegal. Shri Thombre filed Appeal Number 126/2003 against this judgment of Co-operative Court before Co-operative Appellate Court but it was dismissed in default and at present its restoration proceedings are reported to be pending. On 5-7-2003, Shri Thombre issue notice to Wasudeo and expelled him as he was absent from meetings because of provisions in bye law No. 40. Wasudeo challenged this in dispute number 648/2003 and his prayer for grant of interim stay was allowed by Co-operative Court. Appeal filed by Mr. Thombre vide Appeal Number 113/2003 was rejected. It is to be noted that in view of judgment of Co-operative Court dated 10-9-2003 in dispute number 417/2003, for reasons recorded therein, election of Wasudeo as Secretary also falls to ground. It appears that on 10-8-2003 annual general meeting of Society was called but President Shri Thombre removed all proceedings, as alleged, of society and hence on 24-82003, the members of managing committee had elected Shri Wasudeo as Secretary. It appears that on 10-8-2003 annual general meeting of Society was called but President Shri Thombre removed all proceedings, as alleged, of society and hence on 24-82003, the members of managing committee had elected Shri Wasudeo as Secretary. Shri Kharpate was taken up as member of managing committee in said meeting. After judgment dated 10-9-2003 by Co-operative Court, District Deputy Registrar convened the meeting to consider no-confidence against Mr. Thombre on 17-9-2003 and Mr. Thombre challenged said notice in dispute number 978/2003. In said dispute by interim orders Shri Kharpate was restrained from functioning as managing committee member. Kharpate filed appeal before Cooperative Appellate Court vide Appeal Number 118/2003 but the same came to be rejected. This dispute was partly allowed by Co-operative Court which held that President has no locus standi to call meeting and the declared meetings held on 24-8-2003 and 3-9-2003 to be illegal. Mr. Kharpate has filed appeal vide Appeal Number 53 of 2005 and same is reported to be pending. It appears that as per notice dated 9-7-2004 issued by vice president of Society, annual general meeting was scheduled on 25-7-2004. Shri Thombre again approached Cooperative Court vide dispute number 716/2004 challenging said notice, induction of Shri Kharpate, and sought its stay. That prayer came to be rejected on 23-72004 by Co-operative Court which found that said annual general meeting was being held as authorised by resolution of managing committee dated 26-5-2004 and by person authorised i.e. Smt. Kamal Badhe. In meeting held on 25-7-2004, Mr. Wasudeo has been again elected as Secretary of Society. Shriram thereafter states that between July, 2004 to October, 2004 total 4 notices issued to hold monthly meeting of Managing Committee and all these 4 notices were forwarded by U.C.P. to Mr. Thombre. On 5th October, 2004 monthly meeting for the month of October, 2004 was scheduled on 11-10-2004 and said notice was received by Mr. Thombre on 8-10-2004. One subject in said meeting was to remove Mr. Thombre from managing committee because of his failure to attend 4 consecutive meetings. Shriram filed caveat before Co-operative Court and on 1110-2004, managing committee remove Shri Thombre and thereafter on 24-102004, Shriram came to be elected as President of Society. It is case of Shriram that on 24-10-2004, one Smt. Dwarkadas Thorat was co-opted as managing committee member in vacancy caused by removal of Mr. Thombre. Shriram filed caveat before Co-operative Court and on 1110-2004, managing committee remove Shri Thombre and thereafter on 24-102004, Shriram came to be elected as President of Society. It is case of Shriram that on 24-10-2004, one Smt. Dwarkadas Thorat was co-opted as managing committee member in vacancy caused by removal of Mr. Thombre. According to Advocate Madkholkar this election of Shriram as president or co-option Smt. Dwarkadas Thorat has not been challenged by Mr. Thombre at all. According to Advocate Panpalia it is illegal and void in view of Kerbaji Maroti Rao Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). 6. As per orders of this Court dated 12-9-2006, Shriram as also Mr. Thombre have filed documents to show that only one out of them was working as president of Society and not the other. Shriram has pointed out that proposed removal, was communicated in advance to Mr. Thombre and though Mr. Thombre received notice and also caveat, he did not prefer to challenges removal or election of petitioner Shriram as President. His learned advocate also points out that this election of Shriram and substitution of Mr. Thombre has been duly published in newspaper Lokmat on 26-10-2004. In order to rebut the audit reports placed on record by Mr. Thombre, he invites attention to communication dated 17-9-2006 addressed by him to special district auditor and reply dated 279-2006 given by that authority that only audit reports/notes till year 2003-2004 are available with it and audit notes for subsequent years cannot be supplied as the same are not available. Documents produced by Mr. Thombre along with his affidavit (Stamp No. 8369/2006) reveal that he has placed on record 3 audit notes, Xerox copy of cashbook for corresponding three years, proceedings of annual general body meeting dated 15-8-2006 and a notice of meeting dated 9-7-2004 sent to him by Smt. Kamal Badhe. The last document is not very relevant because admittedly on that day Mr. Thombre was President. Audit notes till said date therefore also cannot be much in dispute. But cashbook placed on record by him show expenditures only for the month of March and April and said expenditure is upon postage for notices of monthly meetings and Xerox. Total expenditure issued to be Rs. 623.46 only for April, 2004. The audit note for period up to 31-3-2004 is prepared by P. V. Pradhan as certified auditor. Cashbook page produced by Mr. Total expenditure issued to be Rs. 623.46 only for April, 2004. The audit note for period up to 31-3-2004 is prepared by P. V. Pradhan as certified auditor. Cashbook page produced by Mr. Thombre for March, 2005 shows credit amount of Rs. 200 each by Mr. Thombre and by Mr. More with balance amount of Rs. 97.46 and expenditure on posting of Rs. 31/- only. Audit note for said period is again prepared by P. V. Pradhan as certified auditor and fact remains that Co-operative Department has refused any such audit. Practically same is the position of last cashbook page for March, 2006 placed on record by Mr. Thombre and audit note prepared by certified auditor D. S. Sapkal. It is admitted position that bank account of Society is not in operation since 10-9-2003. The Society appears to have about 49 members as per audit note of 2003-2004. Shriram has not produced any proceeding book either of managing committee meeting or of general body meeting and he has placed on record only typed copies of certain resolutions along with this petition. He has alleged that on 10-8-2003 Mr. Thombre removed all original proceedings. Mr. Thombre also has not produced any proceedings. During argument, Advocate Panpalia has handed over Xerox copy of minutes of annual general body meeting for year 2005 held on 14-8-2005. Said proceedings alleged that Shriram and his group are absent in all meetings from 24-8-2003 and it also considers resignation of certain members and grant of membership to new persons. It also mentions approval to audit note for the year 2004-2005. Shri Vilas Deshmukh is shown as seconder on subject number 1,6(1) and 7(4). He is shown as proposer for subject No.3. On 16-4-2003 only two members of managing committee passed resolution and appointed him in place of Shriram. It is therefore clear that neither Shriram nor Mr. Thombre have produced any satisfactory material on record to show that only he and not the other has been functioning as President of Society. On the contrary, it appears both of them were simultaneously posing to be the President at same time. Basic burden to establish his exclusive administration was on petitioner Shriram and he could not discharge it. 7. Mr. Thombre has written to Co-operative Department to appoint Election Officer or to approve appointment of Shri Sharad Deshmukh as such on 10-4-2006 itself. On the contrary, it appears both of them were simultaneously posing to be the President at same time. Basic burden to establish his exclusive administration was on petitioner Shriram and he could not discharge it. 7. Mr. Thombre has written to Co-operative Department to appoint Election Officer or to approve appointment of Shri Sharad Deshmukh as such on 10-4-2006 itself. Shriram has sought approval to name of Shri R. V. Pradhan as Election Officer on 17-1-2006 in terms of resolution of managing committee dated 15-1-2006. Shriram has also placed on record further correspondence or reminders in this respect. This Court has in Kerbaji Maroti Rao Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) already concluded that unless action under section 78 of MCS Act is taken, a person cannot cease to be a member of committee even under Rule 58 of Maharashtra Co-operative Society's Rules, 1961. It is held that inquiry into such disqualification is quasi-judicial in nature and if a person is to cease as member of Managing Committee, order of his removal under section 78 is must. Petitioner Shriram has not shown to this Court any such order passed against Mr. Thombre under section 78 by competent authority. Claim of Shriram that he has become President after removal of Mr. Thombre therefore does not seem to be legal. However, Mr. Thombre also does not appear to have taken any positive steps to restrain Shriram or to regain entire administration. In such circumstances, it is not necessary for this Court to go into this controversy at all. Impugned order clearly mentions the predicament of respondents 1 and 2 in the matter. The rival claims for appointment of their own person as Election Officer by Shriram and Mr. Thombre is pointed out and it is also stated that both of them are making allegations against each other. The fact that bank account is frozen since 10-9-2003 also appears therein. Both these persons are stated to have maintained their own records about functioning of Society and it is noticed that functioning of society as such as per bye laws has come to stand still. It is also recorded that managing committee is not interested in administering the affairs of society but there are constant disputes about post/offices between them. Both these persons are stated to have maintained their own records about functioning of Society and it is noticed that functioning of society as such as per bye laws has come to stand still. It is also recorded that managing committee is not interested in administering the affairs of society but there are constant disputes about post/offices between them. In this background it is recorded on 21-4-2006 that it is not necessary to issue any previous notice to managing committee members and its order of super session has been passed. In Reply Affidavit before this Court, respondent number 1 Deputy Registrar has pointed out that Society has not made any arrangement for reserve funds every year in annual budget of society for conducting election. The dispute between two groups is also pointed out and it is stated that both these groups were creating problems and confusion amongst members of Society and were not performing duties as per MCS Act or Rules framed thereunder or bye laws of Society. It is stated that therefore, Government Administrator was appointed and he also opened bank account in the name of Administrator of said Society on 22-4-2006. As daily functioning of Society was stopped, there was financial disorder, bank account was not operative, there was no alternative but to appoint Administrator for free and impartial elections. 8. In Chandralok Sahakari Gruha Ninnan Sanstha Ltd., Shegaon vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Shegaon (supra) in paragraph 22 this Court has held that that whether circumstances justify taking of immediate action as contemplated by the second proviso to section 77-A (1) of MCS Act or not, is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. As long as reasons given by said authority are not perverse it is not open to this Court to interfere with the same. Merely because respondent number 1 did not under first proviso published such notice, that by itself cannot mean that there are no reasons or reasons are perverse. The Division Bench found that when such exercise is challenged, respondent is duty bound to produce on record circumstances which justified dispensing of compliance with first proviso. Merely because respondent number 1 did not under first proviso published such notice, that by itself cannot mean that there are no reasons or reasons are perverse. The Division Bench found that when such exercise is challenged, respondent is duty bound to produce on record circumstances which justified dispensing of compliance with first proviso. Hunger strike of employees of Society for the reason that members of managing committee were disinterested in working, desire of members of holding early elections through Administrator, non inclusion of names in voters list, objection to appointment of Election Officer, these matters being subjudice before Court, apprehension that Chairman of society was incurring unnecessary expenditure unauthorisedly and possibility of tampering of records were all found to be sufficient reasons by Division Bench in this case. In present matter, efforts of Mr. Thombre and Shriram to displace each other in manner not contemplated by MCS Act, various disputes filed by them or their supporters against each other, frozen bank account of Society for about last three years, no provision for reserve fund to meet election expenditure in annual budget, attempt to have Election Officer of their own choice, both' factions maintaining different records, non-functioning of Society for achievement of its aims and objects all clearly support the need of an Administrator. In judicial review, the application of mind by respondent number 1 cannot be said to be perverse and if relevant material has been looked into, its sufficiency is not justiciable. Though present petitioner Shriram is not in position to show his legal right to administer the Society, fact remains that Mr. Thombre who has been admittedly elected as President has not bothered to exert his authority and office after 24-10-2004. The Department is therefore right in concluding that managing committee is not interested in seeing that Society is administered in accordance with law but its members are interested in usurping the positions as office bearers. However, that by itself is not sufficient to show that ingredients of section 77-A are satisfied and to sustain impugned order. Facts above clearly demonstrate that clauses (1-a) to (d) are not at all attracted and only clause (f) which may be somewhat relevant also becomes inapplicable because no proceedings about his removal or challenging usuruption of post of President by Shriram are shown to be pending at the instance of Mr. Thombre before Cooperative Court or any other Court. Facts above clearly demonstrate that clauses (1-a) to (d) are not at all attracted and only clause (f) which may be somewhat relevant also becomes inapplicable because no proceedings about his removal or challenging usuruption of post of President by Shriram are shown to be pending at the instance of Mr. Thombre before Cooperative Court or any other Court. It is therefore clear that the order passed under section 77 A itself is not sustainable. 9. Here, there is one more factor to be noted. Not only that two persons viz. Shriram and Mr. Thombre are claiming to be the President of Society adverse to each other but the tenure of managing committee has already expired and period of more than three months has expired thereafter. In view of provisions of section 73H which is somewhat similar to section 73G (2B), all committee members are deemed to have vacated their offices. Neither Shriram nor Mr. Thombre has any right to claim to continue as President. The position in this respect is considered in 1994(1) Mh.L.J. 892 = AIR 1994 Bom 257 , Shamburaj Shivajirao Desai and others vs. Director of Sugar, Maharashtra State, Pune and others where judgment in Ghatageppa Parreppa Mugeri vs. M. R. Naik (supra) has been distinguished in view of section 73G(2B). This section reads thus:- "(2B) "Where, for any reason whatsoever, the election of the members of the committee was not held or could not be held before the expiry of the term or the extended term, as the case may be, of the existing committee, the members, including the officers of the committee shall cease to hold office on the expiry of its term or extended term, as the case may be, and they shall be deemed to have vacated their offices: Provided that where the Collector fails to hold election to the Committee of any such society, the term of office of the members of the Committee of that society shall be deemed to have been extended to the date immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of the newly constituted Committee ". (Note :- Sub-section (2B) has been added in 1986 while the proviso has been added from November, 2000) Relevant observations in this judgment (Shamburaj) supra are:- "6. I have also perused the decision of this Court in Ghatageppa. Parreppa Mugeri (supra) referred to by the learned counsel. (Note :- Sub-section (2B) has been added in 1986 while the proviso has been added from November, 2000) Relevant observations in this judgment (Shamburaj) supra are:- "6. I have also perused the decision of this Court in Ghatageppa. Parreppa Mugeri (supra) referred to by the learned counsel. This judgment was rendered in the context of section 73G(2) as it stood then which contained an express provision to the effect that the elected members of the managing committee who hold office for a period of five years shall continue in office until immediately before the first meeting of the members of the new committee. it was observed by this Court that under the above provision the members of committee were entitled to continue to function as such till the first meeting of the newly elected managing committee - who were the successors to the office. This is clear from the following observation in the above decision: "It is necessary to point that the mere fact that the period of office of an elected Managing Committee has expired does not mean that the members of the Managing Committee become functus officio immediately. There is an express provision in section 73G(2) of the Act which provides that the elected members of the Managing Committee who hold office for a period of five years "shall continue in office until immediately before the first meeting of the members of the new committee". Under this provision the members of the Managing Committee are entitled to continue to function as such till the first meeting of the newly elected managing committee who are the succes80rs-in-office." That position no more exists after the amendment of section 73-G in the year 1986 and substitution of sub-section (2) by sub-sections (2), (2A) and (2B) which provide to the contrary. It is now stated in express terms in sub-section (2) of section 73G that the term of office of the elected members shall be for a period of five years from the date on which the first meeting is held, unless the period is extended by the State Government. The power of the State Government to extend the period is also restricted to one year that too can be exercised for reasons to be recorded in writing. The aggregate term, in any event, cannot exceed six years. The power of the State Government to extend the period is also restricted to one year that too can be exercised for reasons to be recorded in writing. The aggregate term, in any event, cannot exceed six years. In sub-section (2B) of section 73G, it has been made clear beyond all doubts that on the expiry of the term or the extended term, the committee and the members shall cease to hold office and they shall be deemed to have vacated their office. On the face of this express provision, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioners that though they were elected in 1984, their term has not expired within the meaning of Cl. (b) of section 77A of the Act so as to empower the Registrar to dismiss them and to appoint an Administrator. Reliance on the decision of this Court in Ghatageppa Pareeppa Mugeri (supra) is totally misplaced and unjustified. " In present case, both groups are trying to hold elections with view to grab power through their own person. Mr. Thombre who allegedly holds original records did not take any steps to restore operation of bank account or to prohibit Shriram from posing or acting as President of Society in spite of publication of fact of election of Shriram in newspaper in October, 2004 itself. He simply ignored said events and continued to act as if there was no obstacle in administration of Society. Insofar as Shriram is concerned, he tried to foist himself as President of Society in manner not contemplated by Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. He also did not take any positive steps to restore bank operations or to procure original records or to stop Mr. Thombre from simultaneously acting as President. Records produced reveal that both tried to and continued to function as President of same Society to the extent possible and then both wanted to capitalise on general elections to fortify their position. Both of them, through their respective managing committees' brought out a situation in which holding of fair and impartial elections in the interest of general members of Society became impossible. The position is not different even today. Atmosphere still does not seem to be conducive to welfare of ordinary member. No fair and impartial elections in the interest of Society as a whole are feasible without intervention of Co-operative Department. The position is not different even today. Atmosphere still does not seem to be conducive to welfare of ordinary member. No fair and impartial elections in the interest of Society as a whole are feasible without intervention of Co-operative Department. I find that provisions of section 73H contain an answer to the situation. Said section reads:- ''73-H. Responsibility of committee to hold election before expiry of term. - (1) It shall be the duty of the committee of every society to arrange for holding the election of its members before the expiry of its term. (2) Where there is willful failure on part of committee to hold the election to the committee before the expiration of its term, the committee shall cease to function on the expiration of its term and the members thereof shall cease to hold office and the Registrar may himself take over the management of the society or appoint an Administrator who shall not be from amongst the members of the committee the term of which has so expired and the Registrar or Administrator shall hold election within a period of six months and the committee shall be constituted before the expiration of that period. " Discussion above is sufficient to show that the situation existing to day is brought about willfully by both groups. It cannot be said that respondent No. 1 is responsible in any way for it. It is also apparent that situation cannot be permitted to continue to the detriment of ordinary member of Society any further. Hence, though I find that impugned order appointing Administrator under section 77-A is unsustainable, still I am not inclined to grant any relief to petitioner Shriram in present matter. Though, learned counsel for petitioner has tried to point out that elections have been held as per interim orders of this Court, in such situation said elections conducted by Election Officer of the choice of group represented by Shriram cannot be accepted to be legal and valid and made binding on entire Society. Such a course of action at the instance of petitioner who himself could not demonstrate any legal right to the post of President, would be perpetrating injustice further on ordinary member of Society. These elections are reported to be unopposed and in this case, I am not inclined to accept that any legal or fair election of Society will remain uncontested. These elections are reported to be unopposed and in this case, I am not inclined to accept that any legal or fair election of Society will remain uncontested. Hence, CA 3531/2006 filed by petitioner is rejected. Because of interim orders of this Court Administrator appointed under section 77-A could not assume charge and function. Hence in exercises of writ jurisdiction I find it in the interest of Society to put an end to such confusion and to direct that respondents shall immediately proceed to appoint Administrator under section 73H and arrange to hold elections of Society as mentioned therein. Petitioner Shriram or added respondent Mr. Thombre shall not in any way interfere with or obstruct management or affairs of society till such Administrator is appointed. In view of this direction, prayer made in CA 3071/2006 is rendered infructuous and same is disposed of accordingly. 10. Writ petition is thus allowed partially and accordingly. Though order dated 21-4-2006 is quashed and set aside, respondent No.1 or other competent authority is directed to forthwith appoint Administrator under section 73H and arrange to hold elections of Society as mentioned therein. The managing committee whose term has expired shall co-operate with Co-operative Department for expeditious holding of such elections. Neither petitioner Shriram nor added respondent Mr. Thombre shall in any way interfere with or obstruct management or affairs of society till such Administrator is appointed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as costs of present petition. Writ petition partly allowed.