(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9400 OF 2010 Shankar s/o. Dagadu Rathod, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Harishchandra Pimpri, Taluka : Wadwani, Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Cooperation and Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur Division, Latur. 3. The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Beed, District : Beed. 4. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Taluka : Wadwani, District : Beed. (2) 5. Arun s/o. Laxmanrao Shinde, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Harischandra Pimpri, Taluka : Wadwani, District : Beed. 6. Sukhdeo s/o. Sopanrao Shinde, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture and Chairman, Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Harishchandra Pimpri, Taluka : Wadwani, District : Beed. 7. The Secretary, Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Harishchandra Pimpri, Taluka : Wadwani, District : Beed. 8. Ashok s/o. Damodhar Kirarthane, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Harishchandra Pimpri, Taluka : Wadwani, District : Beed. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. (3) Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for respondent no.5/ caveator. Respondent nos.6 to 8 served (Absent). ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28TH MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, for the petitioner; learned AGP Mrs. V.A. Shinde, for respondent nos.1 to 4, and Adv. Mr. V.D. Salunke, for respondent no.5. None for respondent nos.6 to 8 though duly served. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31-8-2010, passed by respondent no.2 / Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur, in Revision Petition No. 3/2010, thereby allowing the revision filed by respondent no.5 under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. By the impugned order, order dated 23-12-2009 passed by respondent no.4 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the said respondent for a fresh decision. (4) 3. Adv. Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, for the petitioner, contends that in orders dated 31-8-2010, the Divisional Joint Registrar has erroneously referred to Section 23(1)(1A) of 1960 Act when here, provisions of Section 22(2) thereof were relevant. He invites attention to orders of Assistant Registrar to urge that the Society had received membership applications from 140 persons and no decision upon it was communicated within statutory period. According to him, therefore, the Assistant Registrar needs to be directed to examine the issue after remand in the light of provisions of Section 22(2) of 1960 Act. 4. Adv. Mr. V.D. Salunke, for respondent no.5, has contended that the present petitioner has no locus to maintain this petition. He is not a member of Cooperative Society at all and he is also not one of the 140 persons who are seeking membership. He points out that by wrongly interpreting the provision, permitting a member belonging to Scheduled Caste to contest election, even if his name did not figure in voters' list, non-member like the present petitioner was erroneously permitted to contest the election. He, therefore, seeks dismissal of petition. 5. After hearing respective Counsel, I find that initial application for addition of 140 names as members is moved by (5) the present petitioner. On separate page, there are names of about 102 persons with their signatures against it. Those names start from Serial No.1 on page 1 and concludes at Serial No.102 on page 4. 6. According to Adv. Mr. Salunke, all these 102 persons have not signed and these separate sheets carrying signatures cannot be part and parcel of application dated 30-9-2009 moved by the petitioner before Assistant Registrar. 7. The tenability of application moved by the petitioner or then absence of all 140 applicants before Assistant Registrar was not the bone of contention in revision filed before Divisional Joint Registrar by respondent no.7 / Society. 8. The petitioner can always point out correct legal provision which governs the facts and situation obtained in the matter. No prejudice is caused to him by remand order. Respondent no.7 can also raise all contentions by way of defence before respondent no.4 in proceedings after remand. 9. Respondent no.4 shall attempt to decide the matter afresh as early as possible and in any case, by 30th June 2011. (6) 10. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp9400