JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Not on Board, upon mentioning taken on Board.
2. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Appellate Authority refusing to grant stay in favour of the petitioners to the impugned order dated 17-8-2002 appointing Board of Administrators – respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein.
3. Mr. Pakale, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the order passed under section 77(A) read with 73H is without issuing notice to the members of the present Committee. He contends that, therefore, the Appellate Authority ought to have granted stay as prayed for and especially when it had admitted the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
4. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner society was registered in the year 1999 and thereafter the present provisional committee was constituted on 19-3-2000. The impugned order dated 17-8-2002 has been passed appointing the Board of Administrators essentially on the basis that the statutory term of the present provisional committee has expired long back and therefore they cannot be allowed to continue in office and instead the Board of Administrators will have to take over the affairs of the society. That has been done on the basis of provision of section 73(1-A)(a) read with section 73(1-A)(c) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 which read thus :
SECTION 73(1-A):
“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Rules made thereunder or in the bye-laws of any society or class of societies,
(a) the first general meeting of a society shall be convened within three months from the date of its registration to appoint a provisional committee and to transact other business as may be prescribed. The term of the members of such provisional committee shall be for a period of one year from the date on which it has been first appointed or till the date on which a regular committee is duly constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Rules or bye-laws made under this Act, whichever is earlier; and all the members of such provisional committee shall vacate office on the date of expiry of such period or such constitution of the committee.
(b) notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a), the provisional committees for the Co-operative Sugar Factories and Co-operative Spinning Mills and such other class of societies, as the State Government may, by special or general order, in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, shall be appointed by the State Government ; and the members thereof shall hold office for a period of three years, which period may be extended by one year, at a time, so however that, the total period shall not exceed five years, in the aggregate;
Provided that, the State Government shall have the power to change or reconstitute such committee or, any or all members thereof at it discretion even before the expiry of the period for which a member or members were nominated thereon;
Provided further that, the member or members assuming office on such change or re-constitution of the committee shall hold office for the period for which the provisional committee has been appointed under this clause.
(c) pending the first constitution of the committee of a society, the provisional committee of the society shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of the committee of such society as provided in this Act, the Rules and bye laws and make necessary arrangements for holding election of the committee, before the expiry of its term.”
5. On plain language of this provision, the present committee which is undisputedly appointed by virtue of Clause (a) above as a provisional committee could have continued only for a period of one year from 19-3-2000, which is the date on which it was first appointed. By virtue of Clauses (a) and (c) of the above provision, on expiry of one year from 19-3-2000 i.e. on 19-3-2001 the petitioners being the members of the present provisional committee automatically vacated their office and could not have exercised the powers and performed the duties of the committee after that date. If that be so, then assuming that there has been some non-compliance in the giving of prior notice to them, as contended by the petitioners, that cannot be a ground to permit the petitioners to continue in office beyond the statutory period. Granting stay in favour of the petitioners would tantamount to passing an order to do something contrary to the above statutory provision. Mr. Pakale for the petitioners has not been able to point out any provision which specifically provides that the provisional committee could continue in office even beyond the statutory period of one year. As is observed, the subject provision has a non obstante clause. If that be so, then the conclusion reached by the Appellate Court that there was no ground to grant stay in favour of the petitioners cannot be doubted. Besides, the plea taken that notice was essential before passing the order under section 77(A) can surely be addressed having regard to the second proviso to sub section (1) of section 77(A) of the Act and which provision has been adverted to in the impugned order dated 17-8-2002. However, all those questions will be decided in the appeal filed by the petitioners. Suffice it to hold that since the petitioners were members of a provisional committee whose statutory term expired on 19-3-2001, they automatically vacated the office by operation of law. In such a case, the question of granting stay so as to permit such persons to continue in office cannot be countenanced. No other contention can be germane to answer this aspect of the matter, for the petitioners have no right to continue in office beyond the statutory period. Hence petition is summarily rejected.
6. At this stage Mr. Pakale makes a request to direct the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal expeditiously. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court
7. The next request made on behalf of Mr. Pakale is that the authorities be directed to maintain status quo till the elections are actually held or the appeal is decided. That request cannot be accepted as it would amount to allowing this petition. Hence the said request is rejected.