- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION (L)NO.939 OF 2008 PETITION (L)NO.939 OF 2008 PETITION (L)NO.939 OF 2008 Capt.S.K.Mishra and others ...Petitioners vs. The District Deputy Registrar, C.S.(1), City and others ...Respondents Mr.Raja Ghadge for the petitioners Ms Uma Palsuledesai for the respondent Nos.1,2,3, 6 and 7. Respondent No.4 appears in person. CORAM CORAM CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 3,2008 : APRIL 3,2008 : APRIL 3,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7 and the Constituted Attorney of the fifth Respondent appearing in person. The substantive prayer in this petition is for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17th March 2008 passed by the second Respondent. An appeal was preferred by the present Petitioners for challenging the order dated 23rd October 2007 passed by the Respondent No.1 under section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960. By the order dated 17th March 2008, the said statutory Appeal preferred by the Petitioners has been dismissed by the second Respondent. 2. It is an admitted position that the Petitioners have - 2 - preferred a Revision Application under section 154 of the said Act,1960 for challenging orders dated 23rd October 2007 as well as 17th March 2008. It is also an admitted position that the Petitioners have applied for stay in the said revision application. It is stated in the petition that till today, no order has been passed on the stay application and therefore, apprehension is that the effect will be given to the order dated 23rd October 2007 passed under section 78(1) of the said Act of 1960. 3. The learned A.G.P on instructions states that the sixth Respondent who is the Revisional authority could not hear the application for stay as the legislative assembly is in session. She, however, states that the application for stay will be decided within a period of four weeks from today. Statement is accepted. 4. In view of the aforesaid statement, this writ petition need not be kept pending. It is an admitted position that during the pendency of the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioners, there was an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo. Only because the revisional authority is unable to hear the stay application, the remedy of revision cannot be allowed to become infructuous. Therefore, the order of status quo which was operating during the pendency of the Appeal deserves to be continued till the stay application is - 3 - disposed of. The said order will have to be continued for a reasonable time in case the order passed on the stay application in revision application is adverse to the Petitioners. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of by passing the following order : i) Stay application made by the petitioners in revision application under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960 shall be disposed of by the sixth Respondent as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four weeks from today. ii) Till the disposal of the stay application, the order of status quo operating during the pendency of the appeal No.219 of 2007 will continue to operate. In the event, the order passed on stay application is adverse to the petitioners, the said order of status quo will continue to operate for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the said order to the Petitioners. iii) It is made clear that the revisional authority will decide the application for stay without being influenced by grant of a limited protection by this court. - 4 - iv) All contentions of the parties on merits of the stay application and the revision application are expressly kept open. v) The contentions which are being raised by the fifth Respondent can always raised by her at the time of hearing the stay application. vi) Rule is partly made absolute in above terms. vii) Parties and the erevisional authority to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE