1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5119 OF 2009 (Kundan Babanrao Zade vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JUNE 29, 2010. I have heard Ms. Mahashabde, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sonare, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, for about 15 minutes. I find that the counsel are not in a position to assist the Court. The District Deputy Registrar has accepted the objection raised by present petitioner and disqualified Respondent No. 4 under Section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). That disqualification was assailed by Respondent No. 4 in appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar. On 28.11.2004, Divisional Joint Registrar has allowed that appeal. Against this order of Divisional Joint Registrar, revision under Section 154 of the Act was preferred by Respondent No. 4 before Respondent No. 1 – Hon'ble Minister. The Hon'ble Minister has by impugned order dated 15.06.2009 rejected that revision and maintained the order of appellate authority. 2 The contention of Ms. Mahashabde, learned counsel is, the Hon'ble Minister did not hear the petitioner and no reasons are recorded. Shri Patil, learned counsel states that written notes of arguments were already before the authority and as the matter was time bound, the Hon'ble Minister has relied upon those written notes of arguments, as the parties were absent. He further states that as the order of appellate authority dated 28.11.2008 has been maintained, no detailed reasons are necessary. His last contention is, in any case alleged conduct on the part of Respondent No. 4 is in exercise of her rights as Director and as citizen, it cannot be viewed as an act prejudicial to the interest of cooperative society. Shri Sonare, learned AGP supports the impugned order. I have perused all the three orders with the assistance of respective counsel. The appellate authority i.e. Divisional Joint Registrar has in the impugned order dated 28.11.2008 in first three pages only reproduced the contentions and arguments and thereafter the conclusions have been recorded. The conclusions are in fact his findings which do not show application of mind and are not supported by any reasons. It, however, needs to be mentioned that said authority found that reply given by Respondent No. 4 to notice under Section 78(1) of the Act was not forwarded to Federal Society and hence there was no effective consultation. 3 In Revision before the Hon'ble Minister, though the Hon'ble Minister has not looked into the minute details, the finding that there was no effective consultation has been maintained. It is, therefore, apparent that the fact that reply to show cause notice served upon her under Section 78(1) of the Act, filed by Respondent No. 4 was not sent to Federal Society, has come on record. That finding of the appellate authority is maintained by the Hon'ble Minister. The petitioner is not in a position to show that said finding is either erroneous or perverse. The consultation that too effective with the Federal society is mandatory under Section 78(1) of the Act and as that consultation is missing, it is apparent that action of removal of Respondent No. 4 under Section 78(1) of the Act is unsustainable. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.