IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 4580 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4580 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4580 OF 2008 Danwad Vikas Seva Sanstha Maryadit. ... Petitioner. V/s. Pro.Late Ramgonda Satgonda Patil (Vikas) Seva Sanstha Maryadit and others. ... Respondents. Dr.V.K.Choudhary for the petitioner. T.S.Ingale for respondent No.1. V.S.Gokhale, AGP for respondent Nos.4 to 8. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 12th September 2008. DATED: 12th September 2008. DATED: 12th September 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.4 to 8. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 5th June, 2008 passed by the Principal Secretary (Cooperation & Marketing) pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.383/2008 dated 19th March, 2008. The operative part of the order passed by this Court reads as under: "4. Needless to state that it would be open for the first respondent society to urge that after the impugned order, the society has been registered and it has started functioning. The Secretary to consider that aspect as well while passing final order. Needless to state that I have not passed any orders either de-registering the respondent No.1 society if it is already registered or staying its functioning if it is functional. I have directed the revision application of the said society (which is claimed to have been registered now) to be considered afresh. Whatever consequences in law that has and the final orders therein are for the society to face and that does not mean that this Court cannot step in, in its jurisdiction under Article 227 if the order under challenge suffers from a patent error and is also perverse. Revision application to be decided within three months from the date of appearance of parties. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. All contentions of both sides including on maintainability of the revision application are kept open. Petition disposed of." 3. Pursuant to the above order, the matter was heard by an independent and impartial officer as directed by this Court and he has passed a reasoned order. The operative part of the said order reads as under: "Revision Application is rejected and the order of Respondent No.6 in appeal No.43/2006 is confirmed. However, applicant society is allowed to function till the procedure prescribed for registration u/s 9 read with section 4 and various circular in this regard is completed and the decision on registration or otherwise is taken. Existence of the applicant society would be subjected to the out come of this process and would be liable to further consequences u/s 4, 9, 21 and 21A of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960." 4. Having seen the operative part of the order passed by this Court as well as of the impugned order, - 3 - no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order is in consonance with the order passed by this Court and directs that the functioning of the respondent No.1- proposed society will be subject to the outcome of the process contemplated and referred in the impugned order. The view taken by the revisional authority is a reasonable and possible view which cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. In the result, writ petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)