Judgment :- NARESH H. PATIL, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.7312 of 2008 prayed for directions to Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to declare election programme for holding election of Respondent No.6 Gangakhed Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd., Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. The Petitioner further prayed for granting injunction against the Authorities from appointing any Administrative Board. The Petitioner prayed for directions to prevent the Administrative Board from disposing of the immovable property of the Respondent No.6 Sangh. Byway of amendment, the Petitioner prayed for directions to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to take the charge of the Respondent No.6 Sangh and to take possession of the property of the Sangh which was illegally delivered to Respondent Nos. 13, 14 and other traders. The Petitioner prayed for interim relief. 3. In Writ Petition No.1175 of 2009 the Petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned resolution dated 3rd December, 2008 passed by the Board in respect of allotment of shops to Respondent Nos. 7 to 23 therein and for conducting enquiry. The Petitioner prayed for directions to re-allot the shops afresh. It is further prayed that Respondent No.3 be directed to reserve 10% shops in the allotment of shops for Educated Unemployed and for interim relief. 4. By an order dated 27th January 2009, notices were issued and ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (G) was granted in Writ Petition No.7312 of 2008 by the Division Bench of this Court. Prayer clause (G) reads as under: "Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the respondent authority may please be directed to prevent the administrative board of director from disposing the immovable property of the respondent No.6 society". 5. On 2nd September, 2009, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: B.R. Gavai & N.D. Deshpande, JJ.) passed order in Writ Petition No. 7312 of 2008. Para 12 and 13 of the Order reads thus: "12] The attitude of the respondent Nos.6/15 and 8 appears to be "Might is Right". The said act shows total disrespect and disregard to the orders passed by this Court and to the institution of administration of justice. No person howsoever high he may be can claim that he is above the law. Not only this, but the respondent No.15 also had an audacity to file a false affidavit before this Court. The said act shows total disrespect and disregard to the orders passed by this Court and to the institution of administration of justice. No person howsoever high he may be can claim that he is above the law. Not only this, but the respondent No.15 also had an audacity to file a false affidavit before this Court. Knowing very well that the property belonging to the respondent No.6 is transferred in utter disregard and in violation of the orders passed by this Court, he has an audacity to say in the affidavit filed on 20th April, 2009 that the property belonging to the respondent No.6 is not disposed of and that it will be put on hire for a period not exceeding 3 years. The said averment is totally false to the knowledge of the respondent No.15. 13] Issue notice to the respondent No.15 and respondent No.8 asking them to personally remain present in this Court on 15th September, 2009 and to show cause as to why action for committing contempt of court be not taken against them. In addition notice be issued to the respondent No.15, as to why action for committing perjury as defined under Section 192 of the I.P.C. be not taken against him, under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. Notice is made returnable on 15th September, 2009." 6. The matter thereafter was heard on some occasions and was adjourned from time to time. By an order dated 26th April, 2010 the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Naresh H. Patil and A.V. Potdar, JJ.) directed to take cognizance of the contempt and issue notices to Respondent Nos. 8 to 12 and 15 in Writ Petition No.7312 of 2008 under the Contempt of Courts Act. They were directed to appear before the Court assigned with hearing of Contempt Petitions. This Court further directed that operation and execution of the lease deeds executed in favour of the allottees be suspended until further orders. This Court further directed not to create any third party interest in respect of the shops. Notice for final hearing was issued at admission stage and both the Petitions were listed for hearing on 17th June, 2010. 7. The parties filed replies, counter replies, rejoinders, as full opportunity was given to them to put up their pleadings before this Court. 8. Notice for final hearing was issued at admission stage and both the Petitions were listed for hearing on 17th June, 2010. 7. The parties filed replies, counter replies, rejoinders, as full opportunity was given to them to put up their pleadings before this Court. 8. In substance, it is gathered from the record that the last elections of Respondent No.6 Sangh were held in the month of September, 1998. The term of the last elected Board of Directors of Respondent No.6 Sangh came to an end on 29th October, 2003. The Petitioner alleges that as Board of Directors of that time, failed to hold the election within the prescribed time, Respondent No.5 Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gangakhed, TqGangakhed, DistParbhani, vide his order dated 20th December, 2003 in exercise of powers under Section 77 (A)(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act of 1960") dissolved the Board of Directors and appointed Mrs. S.L. Pundge, Cooperative Officer, First Class, as Administrator for a period of six months. It is contended that Respondent No.2 Deputy Secretary, Cooperative and Textile Department, vide letter dated 3rd January 2004, directed the Respondent No.4 the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Parbhani to appoint five persons as Administrative Board of Directors on Respondent No.6 Sangh. On 29th January, 2004 again the Respondent No.2 the Deputy Secretary issued a communication directing Respondent No.4 the District Deputy Registrar to appoint Administrative Board under the chairmanship of Shri. Balasaheb Haribhau Niris. The Petitioner contends that said Shri Balasaheb Haribhau Niris and Shri. Hiraman Dattarao Kadam were members of the Board of Directors which was dissolved by the Assistant Registrar for failure to conduct the elections within prescribed time. The Administrative Board did not hold elections from 2004 till 2008. The Petitioner contends that the financial position of Respondent No.6 Sangh, during the period deteriorated. The salaries and other consequential benefits to the employees were not paid since the year 2001. The Board acted against the financial interest of the Sangh. The Board did not hold elections as they enjoyed power being members of the Administrative Board. 9. The Petitioner contends that Respondent No.6 Sangh in the General Meeting held in the year 2000, passed a resolution in respect of the immovable property of the Respondent No.6 Sangh. The Board acted against the financial interest of the Sangh. The Board did not hold elections as they enjoyed power being members of the Administrative Board. 9. The Petitioner contends that Respondent No.6 Sangh in the General Meeting held in the year 2000, passed a resolution in respect of the immovable property of the Respondent No.6 Sangh. It is contended that though the term of the Administrative Board expired in the year 2004, neither the State Government nor the Authorities took steps to hold elections. The Petitioner apprehended that without authority of law, the Administrative Body would construct and dispose of the shopping complex to suit their ulterior motives for getting financially benefits. 10. The Petitioner contended that the order passed by this Court of granting interim relief in terms of prayer clause (G) was published in widely circulated newspapers on 15th February, 2009 and 17th February, 2009. Inspite of the same and inspite of the knowledge of passing of the order the Authorities, the Administrative Board permitted execution of mortgage deeds contrary to the order passed by this Court on 27th January, 2009. It is submitted that the Respondents committed contempt of Court. 11. On behalf of the Respondent No.4, Shri. Sunil Kulkarni, Assistant Registrar (Admn.) in the office of District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies Parbhani, filed affidavit in reply. The deponent admitted that economic position of the Sangh at the relevant time was worst. The State Government invoked powers under Section 157 of the Act of 1960. The term of the Administrative Board of Directors was extended till 24th September, 2008. In Para 14 the deponent submits, that the Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune had given conditional permission to the proposal submitted by the Respondent No.6 and directed as per the proposal, to construct shopping complex and allot the shops to the traders on hire basis only as per the Government valuations. 12. A rejoinder was filed by the Petitioner taking objection to the manner in which the shops were allotted and mortgaged in favour of the favoured persons and relatives of the members of the Board. It is alleged that the shops were leased out at lesser price. It is alleged by the Petitioner that though against single shop in the complex, Rs.15 to Lakhs were taken, but receipt of only Rs.3 Lakhs was given and in this manner the Board misappropriated huge amount. It is alleged that the shops were leased out at lesser price. It is alleged by the Petitioner that though against single shop in the complex, Rs.15 to Lakhs were taken, but receipt of only Rs.3 Lakhs was given and in this manner the Board misappropriated huge amount. One of the serious contention raised by the Petitioner is that construction of the shopping complex was itself illegal and against the Municipal Laws. 13. On behalf of Respondent No.6 Sangh affidavit in reply came to be filed. The scheme for construction and allotment of shop was narrated. It was contended that Respondent No.6 was permitted to reconstruct the building and allot shops to the traders on hire basis as per the Government norms and conditions. The building of the Respondent No.6 was very old and the same was not fit for use. The Public Works Department had also, accordingly communicated the same. The deponent contended that application was filed for demolition of old building and construction of shopping complex on the same place along with the required fees, with the Municipal Council, Gangakhed. All the necessary documents were also furnished. The Municipal Council issued proclamation inviting objection if any from public at large on 8th October, 2008 and nobody had objected to the project within the stipulated time frame. The Respondent No.6 Sangh waited for considerable period for more than two months as contemplated under Section 189 of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short "the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act"). The Respondent No.6 alleges that as the President of Municipal Council is from rival political group, the necessary permission was not issued in time inspite of the Respondent No.6 Sangh making compliances. It is alleged that the President of the Municipal Council constructed huge shopping complex near the place where the present shopping complex in question was constructed, that was one of the reason for the Municipal Council for non cooperation with the Respondent No.6 Sangh. In the light of the provisions of Section 189 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act the Respondent No.6 Sangh started construction of the new building by demolishing the old building. The communication dated 12th January, 2009 was addressed to the Manager of Respondent No.6 Sangh by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, who demanded certain more information and also informed to stop further construction. The communication dated 12th January, 2009 was addressed to the Manager of Respondent No.6 Sangh by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, who demanded certain more information and also informed to stop further construction. The Respondent No.6 Sangh made necessary compliance and submitted the documents on 15th January, 2009. The deponent contends that the High Court passed an Order on 27th January, 2009, which was communicated to Respondent No.6 on 9th February, 2009 and much prior to that the resolution was passed in the meeting of Board of Directors on 3rd December, 2008, to lease out the shops in the newly constructed building. The deponent submitted that as the financial condition of the Sangh was poor, funds were to be raised. The deponent contends that Respondent No.6 or its authority did not dispose of the portion of the immovable property. The shops were allotted on hire basis for three years and as per the conditions stipulated in the resolution. The Authority of the State granted permission to reconstruct the building on certain terms and conditions. There was no violation of any Order of the Court, according to the deponent. 14. The Petitioner filed affidavit in rejoinder, contradicting the stand of the contesting parties. 15. The Respondent No.6 also filed affidavit in rejoinder and tendered unconditional apology to this Court. The deponent submitted that due to mistake, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the order, the situation had arisen. It was submitted that for improving the financial position of the Sangh, the construction of shopping complex was undertaken. The amount received is deposited in the Bank. The Sangh collected an amount of about Rs. 82 Lakhs and Rs. 11 Lakhs were paid towards salary and dues of the employees which were pending since 2001 and at present Sangh is having Rs.21.74 Lakhs in the account. The deponent submitted that the Order of the Court was interpreted to mean that the shops could not be sold out but could be leased out. It is contended that the Sangh constructed 21 shops in the complex out of which 4 shops were retained for use of Sangh and on second floor 1800 sq. ft. space was made available for the office of Respondent No.6 Sangh. The shops were allotted to the highest bidders. Entire procedure was adopted in the transparent manner and there is no illegality or irregularity in the same. 16. Respondent Nos. ft. space was made available for the office of Respondent No.6 Sangh. The shops were allotted to the highest bidders. Entire procedure was adopted in the transparent manner and there is no illegality or irregularity in the same. 16. Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 also filed affidavit in reply. Respondent Nos. 6 and 15 further filed affidavit in reply on 29th September, 2009 and justified execution of lease in favour of the third parties. It is contended in the affidavit that the concerned Respondents have withdrawn the lease deeds executed on 24th September, 2009. 17. On behalf of Respondent No.8, affidavit in reply was filed and said deponent contended that the notices were issued cancelling the lease deeds executed in favour of the concerned persons. Affidavit in reply was filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.24 to 27 and 29 to 32 on 30th September, 2009. Affidavit in reply was also filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.16 to 23 and 34 on 15th September, 2009. 18. Shri. Bachate, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.7312 of 2009 submitted that as fresh elections of Sangh were held, now the relief to that extent does not survive. The Petition was therefore, contested on the decision taken by the Administrative Board of which two members were part of the earlier Board. The counsel vehemently argued that inspite of the order passed by this Court, the Sangh with an adamant attitude, went ahead to construct the shopping complex and by adopting illegal means and methods, allotted the shops to the favoured ones. Though huge amount was collected, but meager amount was credited to the account of the Sangh. Construction of shopping complex itself was illegal as Municipal Council did not accord permission to construct shopping complex. The counsel submitted that the Respondents are putting forth a theory that there was deemed permission and therefore they went ahead with the construction. In the submissions of the counsel, the Municipal Council had asked for more information from the Respondents, which was not submitted and therefore the theory of having deemed permission cannot be utilised by the Respondents. The counsel submitted that the Authorities from the Office of the District Deputy Registrar and other concerned failed to check and control the activities of the Administrative Board, for which the enquiry is required to be initiated against them. They are responsible for the present situation. The counsel submitted that the Authorities from the Office of the District Deputy Registrar and other concerned failed to check and control the activities of the Administrative Board, for which the enquiry is required to be initiated against them. They are responsible for the present situation. The counsel submitted that firstly, the constitution of the Administrative Board itself was illegal. There is no explanation as to why the elections were not held in time and Government Officers were helplessly watching the misdeeds of the Administrative Board. The counsel submitted that, it can be reasonably inferred that the Officers of the Cooperative Department had consented the misdeeds committed by the Administrative Board. The learned counsel submitted that names of some of the allottees were not part of the resolution. The Petitioner was willing to get the licensees who would have offered double the amount than what was offered by the present allottees. Though the affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents that they had cancelled the lease deeds, the Sangh has not obtained possession of the said shops. The rules framed for disposal of the property and the State's policy in this regard were violated by the Board, in respect of disposal of public property. 19. Shri. P.R. Patil, learned counsel appearing for Administrative Board submitted that in the light of the provisions of Section 77 (A) (1) of the Act of 1960 the Board was appointed. The shops were allotted on lease basis. The decision was taken in the financial interest of the Sangh. The building permission was deemed to have been granted and therefore the old building was demolished and new was constructed. The Sangh had created comfortable space for running its office and holding meetings. The counsel submitted that Municipal Council does not say that the construction was illegal. Necessary permissions were granted. The learned counsel raised objection to the locus standi of the Petitioner who is political rival of the members of the Administrative Board. The counsel submitted that the Petitioner has alternate remedy under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the Act of 1966"). The counsel submits that the Petition is not a public interest litigation. The Petitioner has no cause of action and this Court would not be entitled to entertain such Petition. The counsel submitted that the Petitioner has alternate remedy under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the Act of 1966"). The counsel submits that the Petition is not a public interest litigation. The Petitioner has no cause of action and this Court would not be entitled to entertain such Petition. As the Director of Marketing permitted the Sangh to construct shopping complex, the Sangh decided to go ahead with the construction. The counsel submitted that disputed facts are raised in this Petition, therefore, this Court should reject the Petition at the threshold itself. 20. Shri. S.V. Mundhe, learned counsel appearing for Municipal Council submitted that the Sangh did not apply for completion certificate. First application was filed on 28th June, 2008 and second was filed on 5th May, 2009. The application filed by the Sangh was not complete, therefore the benefit under Section 189 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act cannot be taken. The counsel placed reliance on the provisions of Section 193, 194, 195A of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act. The counsel submitted that the instructions were issued to the Sangh to stop the construction. The first proposal submitted by Respondent No.6 Sangh with the Municipal Council was not complete. The second proposal was filed with the Municipal Council in the month of May, 2009 when the building was constructed in the month of March, 2009. 21. Learned counsel Shri. Hon and learned counsel Shri R.N. Dhorde, on behalf of some of the allottees submitted that the Petitioner has alternate remedy. He has no locus standi to file this Petition. The Petition is politically motivated. The resolution passed by the Board should have been challenged in the appropriate forum. There are disputed questions of facts. The shops are already allotted and therefore no effective order could be passed. Under the provisions of Section 189 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act the permission would be deemed to have been granted. Therefore, there is nothing illegal in Respondent No.6 to construct shopping complex. The counsel further submitted that the allottees are innocent, they are third parties. They have paid the amount fixed by Sangh and possession has been handed over to them. The allotment was made on the basis of highest bidders. Therefore, there is nothing illegal in Respondent No.6 to construct shopping complex. The counsel further submitted that the allottees are innocent, they are third parties. They have paid the amount fixed by Sangh and possession has been handed over to them. The allotment was made on the basis of highest bidders. The counsel therefore submitted that their possession be protected and as they are strangers to the internal disputes, their right to possess the property shall be protected. 22. Ultimately, learned counsel Shri Bachate submitted that there has been misappropriation of the huge funds by the Administrative Board. In the light of the provisions of the law and the reported Judgment in the case of S.M. Kamble and others vs. Jt. Registrar and others, 2008 (1) B.C.R. Page 695, according to the counsel, the Administrative Board cannot take any policy decision. The provisions of Section 92 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act and provisions of Section 36 and 72 of the Act of 1960 were referred to by the learned counsel. 23. Shri. V.D. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1175 of 2009 submitted that the shops were allotted to the relatives of the earlier members. There is no counter affidavit filed to the Petition. The contentions raised in the Petition have gone unchallenged. The order passed by the District Deputy Registrar staying the construction was flouted. The counsel submitted that fresh auction of the shops is required to be done so as to do complete justice to the parties and which would act as a deterrent for others. The Sangh would be financially benefited if fresh auction is directed by this Court. 24. During the course of hearing, the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council along with the record, was present. We have perused the record available with the Municipal Council. From the record of the Municipal Council, we find that the Manager of the Respondent No.6 asked for permission to demolish the old building and for construction of new shopping complex by communication dated 26th September, 2008, wherein it was mentioned that necessary documents were annexed. By communication dated 12th January, 2009 the Chief Officer, Municipal Council informed the Manager of Respondent No.6 that there are certain deficiencies in the proposal submitted. It was specifically intimated that unless the deficiencies are cured, permission for construction cannot be granted. By communication dated 12th January, 2009 the Chief Officer, Municipal Council informed the Manager of Respondent No.6 that there are certain deficiencies in the proposal submitted. It was specifically intimated that unless the deficiencies are cured, permission for construction cannot be granted. It was further ordered that the construction shall be stopped within 24 hours. By communication dated 26th February, 2009 it was informed by the Chief Officer that ongoing construction was illegal and without permission. The entire episode demonstrates the state of affairs and is pointer to the fact that in what manner the responsible bodies like Respondent No.6 are conducting the affairs and to what extent the responsible authorities are watchful in implementation and governance of the law. The question further arises as to whether the authorities are serious enough to follow rule of law or to kneel down before certain pressures knowingly or unknowingly. Such pressure if it was there then it would be the detriment of the society, public at large and in complete breach of mandatory provisions of law. 25. Firstly, we do not approve of the explanation given by the Respondents in respect of the interpretation put up against the ad interim order dated 27th January, 2009 whereby ad interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause (G). The contesting Respondents submit that they understood the order to mean that the shops were not to be disposed of or sold out, but the shops could be leased out. Being a subjudice matter before the High Court, known to the Authorities, parties and circulated in media, the Administrative Board, the District Deputy Registrar and the higher Authorities ought to have taken serious note of the fact and if they wanted any clarification, modification of the order passed by this Court, they had all the opportunity to approach this Court and get the doubts, if any, cleared. For the reasons best known to them, nothing of this sort had happened. On perusal of the record of the Municipal Council and the documents placed on record, we find that the theory of deemed permission as enunciated by the Respondents for demolition of old building and construction, does not carry much force. We find that the Municipal Council also failed in its duties. On perusal of the record of the Municipal Council and the documents placed on record, we find that the theory of deemed permission as enunciated by the Respondents for demolition of old building and construction, does not carry much force. We find that the Municipal Council also failed in its duties. In this helpless situation, there are so many authorities who contributed in achieving the objective of the Respondent No.6 Sangh, which was at the relevant time governed by the Administrative Board. The seriousness of the lapses could well be understood. We have considered the provisions of the Act of 1960, the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act, and the Act of 1966, for the purposes of the issue which is relevant to be considered in this regard. We are of the view that the Administrative Board, the Manager of the Sangh and the Authorities concerned have acted in total disregard to the order passed by this Court and against the principles of reasonability and adherence to the rule of law. 26. As this Court had already taken cognizance of the contempt and placed the matter before the appropriate Court, in fairness to the parties, we do not wish to say anything more in that regard. 27. There is controversy as to whether the lease period was of three years or 31 years. We find that the stand of the Respondents, shifting, frequently while number of affidavits and rejoinders were filed. At one point of time, it was pleaded that lease deeds are cancelled. The question is raised in respect of the manner in which the lease deeds were executed, the authenticity of the same was also in question. We may not dilate much on the issue whether the Sangh would have fetched more amount if some other method would have been adopted, though the Petitioner made an offer that he could get bidders/purchasers/licensees who would pay double the amount than what was received by the Respondent No.6 Sangh. 28. The Petitioners placed reliance on the following reported Judgments: (1) S.M. Kamble and others vs. Jt. Registrar and others, 2008(1) B.C.R. Page 695, (2) Jt. 28. The Petitioners placed reliance on the following reported Judgments: (1) S.M. Kamble and others vs. Jt. Registrar and others, 2008(1) B.C.R. Page 695, (2) Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Socieities, Kerala vs. T.A. Kuttappan and others, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. Page 2378, (3) K. Shantaraj and another vs. M.L. Nagaraja and others, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. Page 2925, (4) Padma vs. Hiralal Motilal Desarda and others, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. Page 3252, (5) Durga Mazdoor Cooperative Society Ltd. Bhandara and others vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur and others, 2004(4) Mh.L.J. Page 786 (6) Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: P.V. Hardas and S.P. Kukday, JJ.) dated 24th January, 2008 in Writ Petition No.8040 of 2006 (Ramesh Bhairoba Mane vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), (7) Order dated 19th December, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No.4902 of 2008 (Vitthal Rambhau Urankar and others vs. the State of Maharashtra and others), (8) Hindustani Education Society and others vs. The Union of India and others,2009 M.C.R. 767. 28. The counsel for Respondent No.8 placed reliance on the following reported Judgments: (1) City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, 2008 J.T. 12127, (2) Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt Ltd. and others, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. Page 511, (3) S.S. Rana vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, 2006 S.R.J.6266, (4) Shamrao Vithal Cooperative Bank Ltd and another vs. Padubidri Pattabhiram Bhat and another, 1993(1) Mh. L.J. Page 1, (5) Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: P.V. Hardas and A.V. Potdar, JJ.) dated 29th July, 2009 in Writ Petition No.4797 of 2009 (Sunil s/o Dattatraya Pawar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others). 29. By placing reliance on the reported Judgments cited supra, the counsel for Respondent No.8 submitted that as Respondent No.6 is a society and not State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, no writ could be issued by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. We have perused all the Judgments cited supra. 30. 29. By placing reliance on the reported Judgments cited supra, the counsel for Respondent No.8 submitted that as Respondent No.6 is a society and not State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, no writ could be issued by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. We have perused all the Judgments cited supra. 30. From the record placed before us, we find that the communication was made by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Parbhani dated 13th February, 2009 directing the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the Manager of Respondent No.6 Sangh quoting the order of interim relief and informing the Sangh that the said property shall not be sold in any manner in the light of the order passed by the High Court and report to be filed accordingly. The Petitioner had also intimated to the District Deputy Registrar by communication dated 16th February, 2009 in respect of the order passed by this Court. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council by communication dated 18th February, 2009, intimated the Petitioner that construction permission has not been given to Respondent No.6 Sangh. On behalf of Respondent No.6 Sangh it has been informed that proper advertisement was given in respect of the offers to be invited for leasing out the shops and accordingly the offers were received and highest bidders were allotted the shops. Those documents are also placed on record. By communication dated 24th September, 2009 the Manager and Administrator of the Respondent No.6 Sangh intimated the allottees that their lease dead is cancelled and possession be handed over to the Respondent No.6. But in fact we are informed that the possession is still with the allottees. 31. Firstly, the Respondent Authorities ought to have held the election of the Sangh no sooner the term of the elected Board was over. Prima facie we find that the constitution of the Administrative Board including members of the earlier elected body, which was dissolved, was not proper. For no good reason the Administrative Board was allowed to function for a period of more than four years and due to this factor the Board could have free hand to deal with the property of the Sangh. For no good reason the Administrative Board was allowed to function for a period of more than four years and due to this factor the Board could have free hand to deal with the property of the Sangh. In principle, there could not be serious objection to the view of the Sangh that the building which had become old, could be renovated, reconstructed or by demolishing the same, a new building could be erected. There could not be objection to the fact that Respondent No.6 should take steps to generate more revenue for their functioning. It was stated that the salaries of the employees were due since long and the Sangh wanted to reimburse these employees and create some more funds and more space for Sangh to hold meetings. Even if the objectives were laudable, the execution was faulty. In the light of the fact that matter was subjudice before the High Court and interim relief orders being passed, it was absolutely necessary for all concerned, howsoever high in position, to understand letter and spirit of the Order passed by the High Court and act in consonance with the same. Apart from the order passed by the High Court, the construction of the building should have been in total compliance of the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act. Certain documents were placed on record by the Respondent No.6, on the basis of which the argument advanced is that they had reason to believe that the permission was deemed to have been granted. We have noticed lapses on the part of the Municipal Council in responding to the communication in time and taking stringent action, if they found that some construction activities were going on without their permission. 32. Learned counsel Shri. Salunke and Shri. Bachate appearing for the Petitioners fairly submitted that demolition of the newly constructed building would not be in the interest of the Sangh, which runs on a limited financial resources. The deficiencies in the building permission could be cured by approaching the Municipal Council, according to the counsel. 33. We have given careful consideration to all the facets of the problem and in the light of the submissions advanced, record placed before us, and prayers made in the Petition, we find that certain orders are required to be passed. The deficiencies in the building permission could be cured by approaching the Municipal Council, according to the counsel. 33. We have given careful consideration to all the facets of the problem and in the light of the submissions advanced, record placed before us, and prayers made in the Petition, we find that certain orders are required to be passed. We therefore, pass following Order: O R D E R (A) The Writ Petitions are partly allowed. (B) The allotment of shops constructed by Respondent No.6 Sangh in favour of the allottees stands cancelled. (C) The lease deeds executed between the parties in respect of allotment of shops are hereby cancelled. (D) The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the Respondent No.6 Sangh are directed to take over possession of the allotted shops, with prior intimation in writing to the allottees. They are entitled to take police help in case any resistance on the part of the allottees is demonstrated. (E) The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies is directed to reallot the subject shops by issuing Public Tender, within three months from the date of receipt of the Order. (F) The amount received from the present allottees towards the allotment of shops by Respondent No.6 shall be refunded with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. to the respective allottees, at the earliest. (G) In case the procedure for making up deficiencies in respect of construction or regularization of the subject complex, same is required to be made by Respondent No.6, the procedure for same shall be initiated forthwith. The Municipal Council shall pass appropriate orders on the proposals which would be received from Respondent No.6, at the earliest. (H) The Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Maharashtra, shall issue appropriate instructions to all the District Deputy Registrars of the State to take effective steps in case such cases are noticed and reported. (I) The Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department is entitled to call for explanation from the concerned authorities for lapses noticed in this regard. (J) The Respondent No.6 and the present allottees shall not create third party interest of whatsoever nature in respect of the subject shops which were already allotted. Rule is made partly absolute on the terms indicated above. 34. Mr. P.R. Patil the learned counsel for the Respondents prayed to stay the effect and operation of this Judgment and Order for a period of six weeks. Rule is made partly absolute on the terms indicated above. 34. Mr. P.R. Patil the learned counsel for the Respondents prayed to stay the effect and operation of this Judgment and Order for a period of six weeks. The learned counsel for the Petitioners resisted the request of the Respondents. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any justifiable ground to stay effect and operation of this Judgment and Order. The request stands rejected. 35. Authenticated copy of this Order be provided to the learned A.G.P. and learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-allottees. 36. The learned A.G.P. to communicate this Order to the concerned Authorities, forthwith.