1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2850/2009 (Prakash H. Sontakke & ors. VS. Asstt. Registrar, Coop. Societies & ors.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 13 , 2009 . Heard Shri Tambde for the petitioners, and Shri D.M. Kale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Also perused the impugned order dated 10/6/2009 along with the application for intervention and the reply filed thereto. It appears that the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur, did not commit any jurisdictional error in allowing the intervention application as the authority thought that the assistance of the intervenors was necessary in the case. It was stated by the intervenors in the application that there was a likelihood of the petitioner misleading the authority while prosecuting the appeal under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and since the issue involved in the matter pertains to the mismanagement and misappropriation of the funds of the Society, the application for permission to intervene was filed. Though the Divisional Joint Registrar has not recorded many reasons for allowing the 2 application, it cannot be said that the authority was not justified in allowing the same, specially in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The judgment reported in 2009(1) Mh.L.J. 786 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP