1 wp 7553.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7553 OF 2011 Venkatesh Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Limited Rahata, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through Manager, Hiraman S/o Haribhau Aher, Age : 44 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Rahata, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Co-operative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The Liquidator, Shri Balasaheb Sathbai Merchants Co-operative Bank Limited, Kopergaon, Tq. Kopergaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. .. Respondents Shri Amol Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri N. R. Bhavar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. 2 wp 7553.11 CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard Shri Amol Gandhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pulkundwar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Bhawar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner had applied to the D. D. R. for permission to institute the suit against the respondent No. 1 for recovery of the amount at contemplated U/Sec. 107 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act. The said permission has been refused. The petitioner has assailed the same in the present writ petition. 4. Shri Amol Gandhi, the learned counsel submits 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 institute the suit U/Sec. 107. The D. D. R. has the authority to grant leave to file the proceedings and he has only jurisdiction to 3 wp 7553.11 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. Shri Bhawar, the learned counsel submits that the authority has exercised his discretion and the leave has been refused in view of the explanation received by him from the respondent No. 3. 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. Perusal of Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, it is manifest that whenever liquidator is appointed a leave has to be sought from the Registrar for initiating any proceeding against such society or the liquidator and the Registrar shall grant 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 4 wp 7553.11 that the authority has not given any reasons while refusing the permission to the petitioner to institute the proceedings. The phraseology of Section 107 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 petitioner to institute the suit against the respondent No. 3 in respect of subject matter applied for. The rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however no costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11