wp10670.11.sxw 1 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10670 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10671 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 10672 OF 2011 Milind Shashikant Wandrekar & Others. ... Petitioners. V/s. Dattendu Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. R.V.Govilkar for the Petitioners. Mr. Ivor Peter D’Cruz for the Respondent No.1. Mrs. M.S.Bane, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 4. --- CORAM:- G.S. GODBOLE, J. DATED :- 12th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. : Not on board. Upon production taken on board. 1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. In view of the Order which is proposed to be passed namely Order of remand, the service of notice on Respondent No. 3 is waived. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has invited the attention of the Court to the impugned order dated 14th January, 2011. He wp10670.11.sxw 2 states that apart from the said order, no other order passed by the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies has been served to the Petitioners. The said order granting recovery certificate records no reasons. There is no consideration of the contentions raised by the Petitioners. 3. In view of what is observed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shireen Sami Gadiali and Another v. Spenta Co.0p.Housing Society Limited & Others, [2011(3)BCR 465], in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the remedy of Revision Application under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 is an efficacious remedy. 4 I have heard the learned Advocates since a very limited issue is involved, namely, that absolutely no reasons are given in the impugned order by the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, H/West, Mumbai. In any administrative, judicial or quasi judicial proceedings it is necessary to give reasons so that there can be a meaningful judicial review of any such order. Not to give reasons in support of any order cannot be overlooked and reasons are absolutely essential so that a superior judicial or quasi-judicial wp10670.11.sxw 3 Forum can consider whether the subordinate authority has properly appreciated the facts of the case or the case put up by the respective parties etc.. 5 I have carefully read the impugned order which is bereft of any reasons. On that ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Since the order is entirely without reasons, the Petitioners cannot be forced to adopt alternate remedy of filing any Revision Application under section 154 . 6 Hence, I pass the following order : i The impugned Judgments and Orders dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Dy.Registrar, C.S., H/West Ward, Mumbai being Exh. “C” in Recovery Proceedings No. Mumbai/H/West/101/2376 of 2011, 2375/2011 and 2377/2011 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside and the proceedings are remanded back to the same Authority with a direction to decide the case afresh after hearing the parties and applying mind to the defences which may be raised by the Petitioners. This entire exercise shall be completed on or before 29th February, 2012. wp10670.11.sxw 4 ii Respondent No.1 is granted liberty to implead Petitioners instead and in place of Dr. S.D.Wandrekar in the aforesaid proceedings under Section 101 and the Petitioners, after being jointed as parties would be entitled to defend the proceedings. iii It is made clear that the replies which are already filed by Late Dr. S.D. Wandrekar will be taken into consideration and in addition thereto, since the Petitioners are being joined as party opponents further time needs to be given to the parties for pleadings. iv All contentions of the parties on the merits of the controversy are kept open. The parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Registrar on 22nd December, 2011 at 3 p.m. v Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. vi All parties and the Dy. Registrar to act on the authenticated copy of this order issued by the Registry. [G. S. GODBOLE, J.]