Supreme Court of India
PRAKASH MAROTIRAO SHERE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 17 November 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 471 · 1995 INSC 754
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 472, margin B
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. By our order dated October 30, 1995, we directed the Government to appoint an administrator. We are informed that pursuant to the said order, the administrator came to be appointed and he too~ charge on 1st November, 1995. We are also informed that pursuant to our observations, election process was set in motion. Objections to the preliminary voters list are to be considered by tomorrow and thereafter, depending on the order to be passed, the competent authority required to finalise the voters list on or before December 30, 1995. It is required to notify the election process on or before January 2, 1996 under Rule 1l of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Election Committee Rules, 1971. The entire process of election is to be completed within a period of 45 days.
p. 472, margin B
We hope and trust that the competent authority would continue the election process schedule hereinbefore mentioned and would conduct the election of the Society as expeditiously as possible without any delay unless he is prevented by any order of the Court or the authorities in that behalf.
p. 472, margin D
The administrator would continue in office till the elections are over and the elected committee takes over the management.
p. 472, margin E
Shri Dushyant Dave, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants seeks to contend the correctness of the action taken against them on several legal grounds. Since the administrator has already been appointed, we are of the view that the issut<s raised have become academic. Therefore, we are not expressing any opinion on merits.
p. 472, margin E
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. G.N. Appeal disposed of.
p. 472, margin G