Rule.

Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally, in view of the urgency so expressed.

2. By this common order, I am inclined to dispose of all these Petitions as common issues, common Respondents and common orders are under challenge. The Respondents have also filed a common reply in all these Petitions.

3. Some of the Petitioners were ex-members of the managing committee of Respondent No.2 Kolhapur District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. (for short, the Bank society). Some of them are existing members of the “managing committee”. Respondent No.2 is the society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) and doing banking business being Federal Society and as other multipurpose and credit societies are its members. The society is authorised to grant a financial assistance to its member societies as per the provisions of the MCS Act, Rules and the Byelaws. The said banking business is also regulated by the statutory directions issued from time to time by the Reserve Bank of India and National Agriculture and Rural Development Bank (NABARD). Under the byelaws the executive committee and the managing committee of the Bank society have power to sanction loans to its members. Respondent No.3 is the State of Maharashtra and is also Appellate Authority as contemplated under Section 152, against the order under Section 88 of MCS Act.

4. The Petitioners have challenged impugned orders dated 18.02.2015 passed by Respondent No.3 and also the basic order dated 23.01.2015 passed by Respondent No.1. All the Petitioners have filed Appeals under Section 152 of the MCS Act on 2.2.2015 along with Applications for stay/interim relief. On 05.02.2014, Respondent No.3 had not granted any order and fixed the Stay Application for hearing on 23.02.2015. The Petitioners, therefore, preferred Writ Petitions. On 12.02.2015, all the Writ Petitions were disposed of with direction to Respondent No.3 to hear at least Stay Applications on 16.02.2015 instead of 23.02.2015, in view of urgency so expressed. I have observed that the matters be heard in accordance with law including to consider the aspect of principle of natural justice.

5. On 18.02.2015, Respondent No.3State Government/ Appellate Authority by the impugned orders, though granted interim protective reliefs, inspite of said apprehension, fixed the Appeals for final hearing on 28.03.2015; permitted the proceedings under Section 98 to continue with further observation that no coercive measures be taken against the Petitioners, but on the condition that they should file a respective undertaking within seven days, stating that they will not alienate or create any third party interest in respect of the movable and/or immovable properties of the Petitioners and also directed them to furnish the details of their respective properties within seven days.

6. Some of the Petitioners, as stated, in view of time period so prescribed, submitted the details also. However, by these Petitions specific contention is raised that as there is no stay granted to the impugned order under Section 88 dated 23.01.2015, the said order itself will attract the disqualification as contemplated under Section 73(C) (A)(iii). That would result into disallowing them from participating in an ensuing election of most of the societies in the Kolhapur District, as the basic process of finalising a provisional/final list of the members of the respective societies has been started. In some of the societies, such steps are already proceeded further. So far as Respondent No.2Banksociety is concerned, the process to finalise the provisional list is also initiated. The Petitioners, if are disqualified at this stage, then they would be deprived of their rights to participate in the statutory elections of the societies inspite of pendency of their statutory Appeals so referred above. The challenge is also made revolving around part of the impugned order, whereby all t