(1) APPELLANTS seek special leave to appeal to this court from the common order dated 15/08/1991 of the High court at Bombay made in Writ Petition Nos. 1120 and 1121 of 1990. We have heard Mr Masodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr Bhasme, learned counsel for the respondent-State and its authorities, and Mr Biria, learned counsel for Respondent 6. Special leave granted.

(2) THE appellants in these two appeals along with Respondent 6 were elected to the Board of Directors of a Cooperative Society : "The Ahmednagar Zilla Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sangh Ltd." for a term of five years. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies in Maharashtra initiated proceedings under S. 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for supersession of the Board of Directors by the issue of a show-cause notice dated 6/05/1989. The explanation furnished by the appellants and Respondent 6 who was also one of the Directors, against the proposed action was not found satisfactory and acceptable by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who, on 31/08/1989, made an order under S. 78 superseding the Board. A statutory appeal was taken before the government. That appeal was heard on 20/03/1990 by the secretary to government in the department concerned. On the same day, the appellate order dismissing the appeal and confirming the Joint Registrars action was made. One of the grievances against the appellate order is that the hearing before the secretary was a mere formality as the secretary concluded the matter in a few minutes in the evening and passed the order the same day.

(3) SIX amongst the newly-elected Directors of the Board challenged the appellate order before the High court in Writ Petition No. 1120 of 1990. The seven remaining members including Respondent 6 who were on the previous Board and were re-elected filed an independent Writ Petition No. 1121 of 1990 assailing the appellate order. The matter came before a division bench of the High court and on 13/08/1991, the division bench made an order in the following terms :

"HEARD Mr Dhorde, Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Kakade G.P. for the State. Mr Kakade G.R. on instructions of R. Nos. 3 and 4 states that they are willing to hold election of the specified society, R. No. 7. We, therefore, direct the Collector, Ahmednagar to hold election of the Society and complete the election process as far as possible within FOUR MONTHS from receipt of the writ. Mr Kakade submits that till the election process is completed, the Managing Committee should not take major policy decision in the interest of R. No. 7 and its members. It will be better if no major policy decisions are taken by the Managing Committee till the election process is completed. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) to continue till the election process is completed."

(4) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contends that the order of the High court is neither one made on the consent of the parties nor can it be called an adjudication. Appellants were not consenting parties to the arrangement contemplated by the order. It is urged that it was open to the High court either to quash the order impugned in the writ petition on a consideration of the merits of the matter or reject the challenge. But the directions issued for a fresh election without pronouncing on the merits of the challenge to the supersession for no reason other than that the government was prepared to hold a fresh election, says counsel, is neither here nor there as no election can or need be held if the supersession is bad.

(5) RESPONDENTS, however, seek to maintain that order was made on consent of all the parties, though, perhaps on account of some inadvertence, the High court had not recorded that fact in the course of the order. But this is seriously disputed by the appellants. Appellants further say that in the proceedings before the High court where appellants had made serious allegations of