(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10775 OF 2010 1. Ramnath s/o. Sopanrao Take, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture. 2. Yuvaraj s/o. Sopanrao Take, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture. 3. Sopanrao s/o. Kashinath Take, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture, All R/o. Khadaka, Taluka : Newasa, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Cooperation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Newasa, Dist. : Ahmednagar. 3. Dnyandev Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Telkudgaon, Taluka : Newasa, District : Ahmednagar, through its Secretary. (2) 4. Mr. M.K. Godbole, Special Recovery Officer, Maharashtra State Coop. Pat Sanstha Federation Ltd., Mumbai. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1,2 and 4. Mrs. A.S. Rasal, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. The matter is part heard. Today, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has with her, the original record pertaining to RRC. (3) 3. The contention of Mr. V.D. Sapkal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is without considering rival contentions and without reference to any defence and without writing any order as such, straightway RRC has been issued. For that purpose, he has invited attention to RRC No. 9/2008 issued on 30th January 2009. He has also some arguments to advance about subsequent order sheets produced along with affidavit by the respondent no.2 / Assistant Registrar. 4. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4, and Mrs. A.S. Rasal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3, are supporting the impugned order. They pointed out that after 27-2-2008 also, hearing was conducted and as a result of that hearing and with due application of mind, the certificate came to be issued. The effort is to treat reasons recorded in additional affidavit in reply as sufficient for the said purposes. 5. Division Bench of this Court in the case reported at 2010(6) ALL MR 550, in the case of Sundeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, has held that if there is no speaking order / judgment delivered, High Court can interfere directly in writ jurisdiction. The proceedings show that there is no reasoned order by the respondent no.2. The (4) requirement of rules, in this respect, is very clear. The stand disclosed in paragraph 4 of additional affidavit in reply filed by respondent no.2 cannot be substitute for that exercise. 6. Even otherwise, emphasis in that paragraph appears to be on the willing acceptance of his liability by the petitioner on 27-2-2008. The authority, however, has ignored the fact that inspite of so called admission, it gave him time to file reply and after reply came to be filed, the matter was heard. Therefore, so called admission was not sufficient by itself to fasten the liability. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) Without going into merits of the matter and as there is no reasoned judgment, the RRC No.9/2008 issued on 30th January 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The proceedings are restored to the file of respondent no.2 for taking fresh decision. (ii) Parties are directed to appear before respondent no.2 on 23rd February 2011. The said respondent shall hear parties afresh in the background of material on record and attempt to pass final orders as early as possible and in any case, by 31st March 2011. (5) 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/10775wp