1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.22 OF 2008. Rajendra Mohanlal Agrawal ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.V.Gangapurwala, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.V.Tele, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 02.07.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns a part of the order rendered by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, on 20.12.2007, whereby stay applications preferred by him have been rejected. 2 2. The petitioner challenged certificate issued U/s 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, by filing the Revision Application Nos.106/2007 and 107/2007. 50% of the amount as required U/s 154 of the MCS Act, as a condition for consideration of the Revision Applications was already deposited and the stay was sought in respect of the remaining amount. The learned Divisional Joint Registrar, held that at the interim stage, it was not possible for him to interfere with the recovery certificates, and since the Bank was facing more financial difficulties, the said applications were devoid of merits. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Mr.Tele. 4. It is pertinent to note that no reply affidavit is filed. The only reason given by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar appears to be in respect of the financial difficulties of the Cooperative Bank. No other tangible and satisfactory reason is recorded. Thus, the 3 impugned order reveals lopsided approach of the authority towards the submissions of the petitioner. The Revision Applications are pending before the learned Divisional Joint Registrar since long. It is of common knowledge that proceedings U/s 101 of the MCS Act, 1960, are summary in nature and as such it is desirable that the Revision Applications shall be expeditiously decided. Considering the passage of time between the interim orders rendered by this Court and the pendency of the said Revision Applications, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice to direct the learned Divisional Joint Registrar to decide both the Revision Applications within a reasonable time frame. 5. In the result, the Divisional Joint Registrar is directed to proceed with the hearing of the Applications R-106/2007 and R-107/2007 expeditiously and to decide the same within a period of six (6) months and until then no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the remainder. The petition is 4 accordingly disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp2208