:1: :1: :1: srp. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2007. Shree Narhardeo Khatav Vikas Sanstha Ltd., Khatav, tal; Palus. ..Petitioner. V E R S U S Niyojit Shree Hanuman Vividh Karyakari Seva Society Ltd, Khatav & Others ..Respondents. --- Mr. Umesh Mankapure for the petitioner. Mr. D. V. Sutar for the respondent no-1. Mr. Rupesh Bobabde for respondent no.6. Mr. C. R. Sonawane A.G.P. for the State. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2007. DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2007. DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is allowed to delete respondent no.7 and add the State Government as a party respondent. Mr. C.R.Sonawane, learned AGP appears for the State Government and waives service. 2. The grievance of the petitioner can be redressed by giving a direction to the State Government to decide the Revision Application No. 1107/File No. 299/15 within a time bound programme. 3. Petitioner - society is a multi-purpose society registered. The respondent no.1 was also registered as a multi-purpose society in the same village with the same object and same area of operation. Aggrieved petitioner challenged the order allowing :2: :2: :2: registration of the respondent no.1 but the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner challenged the order of registration of the respondent no.1 society by filing a revision application before the State Government. Therein the petitioner applied for the stay of the order granting registration to the respondent no.1. As no decision was taken by the State Government on the said application, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. We are informed at the bar that during the pendency of the petition the respondent no.1 society has already started functioning in the village. In the circumstances, we are of the view that stay to registration cannot be granted at this stage. The functioning of the respondent no.1 society cannot be disturbed pending decision of revision but it will be appropriate to direct the State Government to decide the revision application within a reasonable time. Mr. Sonawane learned AGP states that revision application will be decided within a period of four months. The statement is accepted. We accordingly direct the government to decide the revision application mentioned above after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 and all other persons affected. Needless to say that the government shall pass a speaking order and shall communicate the same to the petitioner and all concerned. Petition is disposed of accordingly. :3: :3: :3: (D.G.KARNIK, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.G.KARNIK, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.G.KARNIK, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)