*1* wp.9770.10.35.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9770 OF 2010 Parshwanath Co­operative Bank Ltd.. ..Petitioner ­Versus­ The Regional Joint Director and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Amit B. Borkar, for the Petitioner. Mr.Drupad S. Patil, for the Respondent No.2. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 13th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard. Rule. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2 The Petitioner applied for permission/sanction of the Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Kolhapur to file the proceedings against the Liquidator of Shri Datta Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., village Asurle­Porle, Taluka : Panhala, District : Kolhapur. That application seeking permission/ sanction for filing an application/dispute before the competent Co­operative Court having been rejected, this Writ Petition is filed. 3 The objection to the maintainability of this Writ Petition is raised on the ground that there is alternate efficacious remedy available to the Petitioner to challenge the impugned order, by way of revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960. *2* wp.9770.10.35.sxw Secondly, it is submitted that the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) has acted within his jurisdiction and therefore, this Court should not interfere. 4 In the peculiar facts of this case and finding that there is no absolute bar for entertaining the Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the objection to maintainability of the petition is overruled. From reading of the order, it appears that the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) has gone into merits of the controversy. He has no authority to decide whether the sum is payable or not and what are merits of the dispute between the Petitioner and the Sugar Factory. Further, priority of dues and ranking thereof, is also a matter which was not relevant, at this stage, before the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) for deciding the application made by the Petitioner for sanction. Finding that the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) has clearly exceeded his jurisdiction in law in rendering the impugned order, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction. For these reasons, the order under challenge passed by the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) is set aside and the sanction as sought by the Petitioner is granted. However, this order will not preclude the Liquidator and all concerned from raising appropriate pleas on maintainability and merits of the dispute, each of them, are kept open. The petition is allowed in the above terms. 5 Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)