Judgment : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 9/3/2011 passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Bench at Nagpur, by which order the application (Exh.5) filed in Dispute No.595 of 2010 came to be allowed and the resolution passed by the petitioner being No.10, dated 16/7/2010 disqualifying the respondent no.1 herein as a Director of the petitioner Society came to be stayed. 3. A few facts, which are necessary to be cited for the adjudication of the above petition are stated thus The petitioner herein is the Cooperative Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The respondent herein was Director of the petitioner Society being elected as a Member of the Managing Committee on 4/4/2010. On account of the respondent remaining absent for four consecutive meetings i.e. on 28/5/2010, 7/6/2010, 19/6/2010 and 26/6/2010 and thereby violating the provisions of byelaw No. 40, a show cause notice came to be issued to the respondent on 2/7/2010 and was thereafter removed as a member of the Managing Committee vide order dated 16/7/2010. Faced with the said order of removal as a Member of the Managing Committee, the respondent filed Dispute being No.595 of 2010 challenging the resolution passed by the petitioner Society. In the said dispute, the respondent also moved an application for interim stay of the said resolution. The said application was rejected by the cooperative Court by order dated 25/8/2010. The Cooperative Court recorded a finding that no case for grant of stay is made out, as prima facie from the record, it is demonstrated that the respondent absented himself for four consecutive meetings on the dates which were mentioned in the show cause notice. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25/8/2010 of the Cooperative Court, the respondent filed an appeal before the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Bench at Nagpur being Appeal No.64 of 2010. The said appeal came to be allowed by the Cooperative Appellate Court solely on the ground that the meeting dated 26/6/2010 was cancelled for want of coram, and since the said meeting was cancelled, the absence of the respondent in the meeting could not be held against him. 5. The said appeal came to be allowed by the Cooperative Appellate Court solely on the ground that the meeting dated 26/6/2010 was cancelled for want of coram, and since the said meeting was cancelled, the absence of the respondent in the meeting could not be held against him. 5. Considering the sole reason mentioned in the order passed by the Cooperative Appellate Court for grant of interim stay, in my view the said reason prima facie cannot stand to scrutiny as the meeting in question dated 26/6/2010 was convened and in fact the Members of the Managing Committee had assembled but for want of coram the said meeting could not be held. The cancellation of the meeting for want of coram stands apart from a simplicitor cancellation of meeting for some other reason. The member of the Managing Committee on receipt of the notice of the meeting and agenda for the same is expected to attend the meeting and it is for the said reason that the disqualification has been provided in bye law No.40. Apart from this, the grant of interim relief would tantamount to granting final relief which is sought in the dispute without the parties going to trial. In my view, therefore, the impugned order dated 932011 is unsustainable on the said twin grounds and is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. It is required to be noted that the Appellate Court has already directed the early disposal of the dispute, in my view the interest of justice would be served if the Cooperative Court is directed to hear and decide the dispute by 31st July, 2011. The learned counsel for the respondent does not object to the said course of action being followed. Rule is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. The parties to appear before the Cooperative Court on 23/6/2011 at 2.30 p.m. Needless to say that the view expressed by this court is a prima facie view and would not come in the way of the respondent in prosecuting the said dispute on merits. The Cooperative court directed to dispose of the said dispute on its own merits and uninfluenced any observations made in the instant order.