JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The short fact in the case appears to be that the petitioner is a Co-operative Bank governed by the provisions of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with provisions of the Banking Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the B.I.R. Act"). On 5th February, 2003, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies passed the order, Annexure 'A' upon the direction issued by the Reserve Bank of India for supersession of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-Bank and for appointment of the Administrator in place of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-Bank. The petitioner in the present petition has challenged the said order passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in exercise of the power under Section 115A of the Act. 2. Heard Mr. Mehta with Mr. K. D. Shah for the petitioner, Mr. Chhatrapati for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Oza, learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6. 3. It is an admitted position that the exercise of the power by the Registrar is under Section 115A of the Act, the same reads as under : "115A. Heard Mr. Mehta with Mr. K. D. Shah for the petitioner, Mr. Chhatrapati for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Oza, learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6. 3. It is an admitted position that the exercise of the power by the Registrar is under Section 115A of the Act, the same reads as under : "115A. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in the case of an Insured Co-operative Bank,- (1) an order for winding-up or an order sanctioning a scheme of compromise or arrangement or of amalgamation or reconstruction (including division or reorganization) of the Bank may be made only with the previous sanction in writing of the Reserve Bank of India; (2) an order for the winding-up of the Bank shall be made by the Registrar if so required by the Reserve Bank of India in the circumstances referred to in Section 3D of the Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, 1961; (3) if so required by the Reserve Bank of India in the public interest or for preventing the affairs of the Bank being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the depositors or for securing the proper management of the Bank, an order shall be made by the Registrar for supersession of the Committee and the appointment of an Administrator in place thereof for such period or periods, not exceeding five years in the aggregate, as may from time to time be specified by the Reserve Bank of India, and the Administrator so appointed shall, after the expiry of his term of office, continue in office until the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of the new Committee of such Bank; (4) an order for winding up of the Bank or an order sanctioning a scheme of compromise or arrangement or of amalgamation or reconstruction (including division or reorganization) or an order for the supersession of the Committee of the Bank and the appointment of an Administrator in place thereof made with the previous sanction in writing or on the requisition of the Reserve Bank of India shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any manner in any Court and (5) the liquidator or such Bank or the transferee Bank. as the case may be, shall be under an obligation to pay the Deposit Insurance Corporation established under the Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, 1961, in the circumstances, to the extent and in the manner referred to in Section 1 of that Act." The aforesaid provision did exist on the statute book when the power was exercised by the Registrar vide the impugned order. 4. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was given by the Registrar to the members of the Managing Committee or the then office-bearers of the petitioner-Bank before exercise of the power, and therefore, the order is in breach of the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that though there is no express provision under the statute for giving opportunity of hearing, such provision deserves to be read and if read, it would require pre-decisional hearing which has not been given in the present case, and therefore, the order would be bad in law. 5. Consideration of the aforesaid submission would not further detain the Court in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in case of Reserve Bank of India v. H. Hanuntaiah & Ors., reported at AIR 2008 SC 994 : 2008 (1) SCC 770 . The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the very question as to whether the principles of natural justice have any application at the stage when the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, on being so required in writing by the Reserve Bank of India passes the order removing the Committee of the Management of a Co-operative Bank and appointing the Administrator to manage its affairs for such period, as may be specified by the Reserve Bank of India. The said question is ultimately held in negative as per the conclusion recorded by the Apex Court in the above referred decision at Para 17. 6. It is true that in the case before the Apex Court, the matter was considered in light of the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, which also provides that the similar scheme for exercise of the power for supersession of the Committee, if it is so requisitioned by the Reserve Bank of India. 6. It is true that in the case before the Apex Court, the matter was considered in light of the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, which also provides that the similar scheme for exercise of the power for supersession of the Committee, if it is so requisitioned by the Reserve Bank of India. Further, the pertinent aspect is that while examining the scope and ambit of the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, the Apex Court had taken into consideration the statutory provisions of Section 10A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, which is more or less the same as per Section 15A of the Act, which has been invoked by the Registrar in the present case for exercise of the power. Under these circumstances, as the issue is covered by the above-referred decision of the Apex Court, no further discussion may be required and the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted since the principles of natural justice has no role to play and the Registrar is to exercise the power for appointment of Administrator by superseding the Committee upon the requisition made by the Reserve Bank of India. 7. Mr. Chhatrapati, learned Counsel appearing for the Reserve Bank of India further submitted that pending the petition, there are following developments: (1) Banking licence of the petitioner-Bank has been cancelled on August 17, 2004. (2) The Bank in capacity as the Co-operative Society under the Act is ordered to be liquidated vide order dated August 19, 2004, and therefore, the Liquidator is holding the affairs of the petitioner-Bank. (3) The claim was fixed for getting the amount of insured deposit with Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Corporation and the claims were to be lodged on or before 23rd December, 2004 and the release of such claim has been undertaken by the aforesaid Corporation from December 24, 2005 onwards. It was therefore, submitted that in view of the aforesaid subsequent development, the cause to the petitioner would not survive. 8. It was therefore, submitted that in view of the aforesaid subsequent development, the cause to the petitioner would not survive. 8. It does appear that if the Society is ordered to be liquidated and the Liquidator is holding the charge until the proceedings of the liquidation are concluded, the member of the Managing Committee will have no say in the matter or in any case, there will not be any question of re-induction of the members of the Managing Committee after the Society is liquidated, and in any case, until the proceedings of liquidation are concluded. Therefore, Mr. Chhatrapati is right in submitting that the cause for the members of the Managing Committee or the then office-bearers of the Society for re-induction in power may not survive. 9. Apart from non-existence of the cause on account of the subsequent development, even if the contention of the petitioner on the basis of which the petition is founded, is considered, the same also in view of the reasons recorded hereinabove does not deserve to be accepted. 10. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any is vacated. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.