: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.301 OF 2009 Sagar Majur Sahakari Sanshta . (proposed) and others ....Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.V.S. Kapse for the Petitioners. Mr.Milind More, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 2ND MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The Petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.6.2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The Petitioners also seek an order directing Respondent No.1 to accept their proposal for registration of their society. 3. Prior to this Writ Petition, the Petitioners filed Writ Petition (Lodging) No.800 of 2005. The same was disposed of by an order of the Division Bench dated 27.4.2005 by which Respondent No.4 therein was directed to decide the Petitioners’ application within six weeks. : 2 : . By an order dated 31.5.2005, the Divisional Joint Registrar rejected the proposal. The order/communication merely stated that the rejection was on account of the Petitioners’ non-compliance. There are no reasons in support of the order. There is nothing in the order which specified/indicated the alleged non-compliance. 4. Thereafter the Petitioners filed Contempt Petition No.5 of 2006. The same was disposed of by an order dated 10.3.2006. It appears that there was a fresh circular issued by the Government requiring all the proposals for registration to be forwarded to the Government. The order records the contention of the Respondents therein that the Petitioner had yet to comply with certain requirements. The learned Judge therefore directed Respondent No.2 therein to communicate to the Petitioners within one week the matters required to be complied with by the Petitioners. The Petitioners were granted a weeks time to comply with the requirements and the Deputy Registrar was directed to process the proposal within two weeks thereafter and to forward the same to the Government. 5. It appears that the said order had not been : 3 : complied with. This led to the Petitioners filing Writ Petition No.3152 of 2006. The same was disposed of by an order dated 8.3.2007. The Division Bench disposed of the Writ Petition by directing Respondent No.1 to decide the proposal within six weeks. 6. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18.6.2007 was passed. 7. Once again the order merely states that the Petitioners had not complied with the terms and conditions as required for registration of the society. The impugned order contains no reasons. It does not even specify the details of the alleged non-compliance. 8. In the affidavit in reply, the Respondents have relied upon a letter dated 21.2.2009, in which it is alleged that the Petitioners had not furnished the information/particulars mentioned therein. As stated above, the impugned order contains no reasons whatsoever. It is not even possible to decide whether the Petitioners had not supplied the documents/information it was necessary for them to supply for the purpose of assisting the Respondents to consider the proposal. According to the Petitioners, they have supplied the information/particulars sought : 4 : in the said letter dated 21.2.2009. 9. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of by the following order :- i). The impugned order dated 18.6.2007 is set-aside. ii). The Petitioners will be at liberty to furnish the documents/information sought for in the letter dated 21.2.2009 once again on or before 30.4.2009. iii). Respondent No.3 shall decide the proposal afresh on or before 30.6.2009. It is made clear that Respondent No.3 shall give reasons of the decision.