1 WP 3116.......2010 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3116 OF 2010 Ashok S/o Bhaguji Wani Age : 62 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Subhadranagar, Near Vanjpe Hospital, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar .. PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Shri Balasaheb Satbhai Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Kopargaon, (Earlier the Kopargaon Taluka Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd., Kopargaon) Through Liquidator, Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar. .... RESPONDENTS Mr.K.N.Lokhande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt.Pleader for the State. Mr. N. R. Bhavar, Advocate for the Resp No. 1. 2 WP 3116.......2010 - [ J ] WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3065 OF 2010 Yogesh S/o Ashok Wani Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Subhadranagar, Near Vanjpe Hospital, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar .. PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Shri Balasaheb Satbhai Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Kopargaon, (Earlier the Kopargaon Taluka Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd., Kopargaon) Through Liquidator, Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar. .... RESPONDENTS Mr.K.N.Lokhande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt.Pleader for the State. Mr. N. R. Bhavar, Advocate for the Resp No. 1. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3335 OF 2010 3 WP 3116.......2010 - [ J ] Sambhaji Shivajirao Dange Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Medical Practitioner R/o Sakori, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. .. PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Shri Balasaheb Satbhai Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Kopargaon, (Earlier the Kopargaon Taluka Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd., Kopargaon) Through Liquidator, Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar. .... RESPONDENTS Mr.S.V. Natu, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt.Pleader for the State. Mr. N. R. Bhavar, Advocate for the Resp No. 1. CORAM : S.V .GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/07/2011 4 WP 3116.......2010 - [ J ] ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr.K.N.Lokhande and Mr. S.V.Natu, the learned counsels for the petitioners, Mr.K.B.Choudhari, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.N.R. Bhawar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioners had applied to the D. D. R. for permission to continue the dispute against the respondent No. 1 for recovery of the amount as contemplated U/Sec. 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [ For short, ‘ the Act of 1960 ’ ] . The said permission has been refused. The petitioner has assailed the same in the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in fact, the D. D. R. has not assigned any reason while rejecting the said application. The permission ought to have been granted to continue the dispute as per Section 107 of the Act of 1960 . The D. D. R. has 5 WP 3116.......2010 - [ J ] the authority to grant leave to file the proceedings and to continue it and he has only jurisdiction to impose such condition while granting the leave. According to the learned counsel the authority while rejecting the said leave had not applied its mind and has also not considered the factual matrix. 5. Mr. Bhawar, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the authority has exercised his discretion and the leave has been refused in view of the explanation received by him from the liquidator. As such, it cannot be said that the authority has not applied his mind while refusing the permission. According to the learned counsel, even a remedy of an appeal is available to the petitioner which has not been availed. As such, writ petition is maintainable. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also supports the impugned order. 6. From the perusal of Section 107 of the Act, 1960 , it is manifest that whenever liquidator is appointed a leave has to be sought from the Registrar for initiating or continuing any proceeding against such society or the liquidator and the Registrar shall grant 6 WP 3116.......2010 - [ J ] leave subject to such condition or terms as he may impose. The said leave cannot be refused without assigning any reasons. The perusal of the order, it is manifest that the authority has not given any reasons while refusing the permission to the petitioner to institute the proceedings. The phraseology of Section 107 of the Act of 1960 also does not permit the authority to refuse leave in such a manner. I do not see any impediment to allow the petitioner to institute the proceedings. 7. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The authority concerned who has passed the impugned order shall give permission/leave to the petitioners to continue the dispute against the respondent No.1 in respect of subject matter applied for. The Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] KNP/WP 3116...2010 - [ J ]