1 901 wp.4139.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4139 OF 2011 Balkrishna Ramchandra Tavse and others. ... Petitioners Versus Commissioner for Co­operation and Registrar of Co.op. Societies and others. ... Respondents ­­­­­ Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for the Petitioners. Ms M.S.Bane, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. N.J.Patil for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. ­­­­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 02 nd September, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 as well as the learned AGP appearing for Respondent No.1. 2 The parties were put to notice that the petition will be taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2 901 wp.4139.11 3 The Petitioners made an application to the Registrar of the Co­operative Societies for grant of leave under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The leave was sought to file a suit against the Respondent No.2 – Bank, which is under liquidation. By the order dated 24 th March, 2011, the Additional Registrar of the Co­operative Societies, Maharashtra State rejected the said application. In the said communication, it is stated that on the prayer made by the Petitioners, remarks of the liquidator were called for which were forwarded to the Petitioners and considering the remarks, leave cannot be granted. 4 The learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 raised an objection by contending that the remedy of filing a revision application under Section 154 of the said Act is available. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the law on the aspect of grant of leave under Section 107 of the said Act is well settled and leave has to be granted as a matter of course. He has relied upon several decisions of this Court. He submitted that as the 3 901 wp.4139.11 impugned order is passed contrary to the law laid down by this Court, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shireen Sami Gadiali & anr. Vs. Spenta Co­op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & ors. [2011 (3) Bombay Cases Reporter 465], this Court can always entertain a writ petition. 5 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. On 25 th February, 2011, the Petitioners made an application to the Respondent No.1 for grant of leave under Section 107 of the said Act to file a suit against the Respondent No.1 – Bank for recovery of certain amount. By the impugned communication, the said application has been rejected without recording any reasons. 6 Section 107 of the said Act provides that after a winding up order has been made in respect of a society, no Civil Court can take cognizance of any suit against the society without obtaining the leave of the Registrar. 7 It will be necessary to make a reference to the decision of 4 901 wp.4139.11 this Court in the case of Nagpur Vinkar Sahakari Soot Girni Maryadit Vs. Ashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh Kamgar Bhavan & Ors [2009 (4) ALL MR 394]. In paragraph No.23 of the said decision, this Court has considered the scope of the powers to grant of leave under Section 107 of the said Act. This Court held that the provision for permission under Section 107 of the said Act has been made purely for administrative reasons and not with a view to defeat the legal rights of anybody. Reliance is also placed on another decision of this Court in the case of Narayan s/o Arjunji Vighne & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors [2011 (1) ALL MR 244]. This Court held that issuance of order of granting leave under Section 107 of the said Act is a matter of course. Thus, the law laid down by this Court is well settled that leave is required to be granted under Section 107 of the said Act only for administrative purposes and as a matter of course. 8 In the case of Shireen Sami Gadiali & anr (supra), the Full Bench of this Court held that remedy under Section 154 of the said Act is available as a matter of right. However, it is held that the question 5 901 wp.4139.11 whether the remedy can be treated as an efficacious remedy, will have to be decided in the facts of the case. The Full Bench held that if the High Court finds that the question involved is covered by binding precedent in favour of the Petitioners, then the High Court may not compel the Petitioner to exhaust the remedy of revision. In the present case, the question is governed by the binding precedent of this Court and hence, the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent No.4 will have to be overruled. 9 This was a case where leave ought to have been granted as a matter of course, but the authority was unnecessarily influenced by the reply submitted by the liquidator. The so called reason assigned for rejection is illegal. There was no reason to deny the leave. Hence, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside. 10 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned order dated 24 th March, 2011 is 6 901 wp.4139.11 quashed and set aside ; and ii. The leave is granted to the Petitioners in terms of the Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960 to file a suit as prayed for. [ A.S.OKA, J ]