-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.4325 of 2007 Shri Deepak Kedu Parkhe ..Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Shri Anilkumar Patil for petitioner. Shri R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Shri Vinod Jadhav with Shri A.R.Kapadnis for respondent nos. 3 to 10 Shri P.N.Joshi for respondent no.12. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 5th February, 2008 5th February, 2008 5th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The grievance of the petitioner in this Court is that the auditor’s findings were questioned in revision before the Revisional Authority and while exonerating the revisional applicants, the Revisional Authority has blamed the present petitioner, an employee of the society. He has recorded certain findings blaming the petitioner in the petitioner’s absence and without any Notice to him. 2. In my view, it is not necessary to interfere with the order under challenge because it would always be open for the petitioner to urge that -2- the Revisional Authority’s findings in no way bind him as they are passed in proceedings to which he was not impleaded as a party or even if he was so impleaded, the same were rendered without hearing him. All such contentions are capable of being urged and merely because there are some observations does not mean that the petitioner is precluded from raising them. Petition is disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)