JUDGMENT Rohit B. Deo, J. - Heard K.P. Mahalle, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.H. Lohiya, counsel for respondent 3, Shri V.S. Giramkar for respondent 4 and Shri C.A. Lokhande, the learned AGP for respondents 1, 2 and 5. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent. 3. The challenge is to an order passed by respondent 2 Additional Commissioner /Special Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra rejecting an application to stay the proceedings moved by the petitioner in proceedings under section 73CA and 78A(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act ("Act" for short). 4. The petitioner, who is a elected director of respondent 3 bank is facing a serious allegation, to wit, he has defaulted in repayment of more than Rs. 6,43,00,000/ which is the outstanding amount in the loan account as on 31.7.2017. 5. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies initiated action under section 73CA and 78A(1) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be disqualified. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has challenged the show cause notice in revision before the Hon''ble Minister. The learned counsel further states that the Hon''ble Minister has not communicated any date of hearing. 6. The maintainability of a revision, if at all revision is preferred, is doubtful since admittedly only a show cause notice is issued. Be that as it may, the only order which is challenged, is an order refusing to stay the proceedings. 7. This Court sees no reason why the proceedings should be stayed. The order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity. It is alleged that the petitioner, who is an elected director, is a serious defaulter. Shri A.H. Lohiya, who appears on behalf of respondent 3 - bank would submit that the petitioner is somehow or the other clinging to office by instituting frivolous proceedings and then requesting the authority to stay the disqualification proceedings. 8. The accusation is indeed serious. As a director, the petitioner is expected to serve as a model and refrain from conducting himself in a manner as would undermine the moral authority of the respondent 3 - bank to recover defaulted loans from ordinary borrowers. 9. 8. The accusation is indeed serious. As a director, the petitioner is expected to serve as a model and refrain from conducting himself in a manner as would undermine the moral authority of the respondent 3 - bank to recover defaulted loans from ordinary borrowers. 9. In this view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate that the disqualification proceedings should be decided by the authority as expeditiously as possible and in any event within 60 days of the date of communication of this order. 10. The authority is put on notice that if any unnecessary adjournment is granted or the time schedule stipulated for deciding the disqualification proceedings is not adhered to, serious view shall be taken. 11. The petition is disposed of in the afore stated terms. 12. Rule stands discharged. No order as to cost.