ash 1 wp-2127.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2127 OF 2011 Dhanwantari Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. .. Petitioner Vs District Collector, Satara & Others. .. Respondents -- Shri Ajit Kenjale for the Petitioner. Mrs Neha Palshikar-Bhide, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 10TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Notice was issued by this Court on 17th March, 2011. The learned counsel appearing of the Petitioner states that private notice has been served to 3rd Respondent. 3. An application was made by the Petitioner before the 2nd Respondent ( Assistant Registrar for the Co-operative Societies ) by invoking provisions of Section 100 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 1960”) and Rule 85 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 ash 2 wp-2127.11 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules of 1961”). In the said application, a reliance was placed on a certificate dated 26th September, 2005 issued by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Satara, by which a certificate of transfer was issued in favour of the Petitioner in accordance with Section 100 of the said Act of 1960 and the Rule 85(5) of the said Rules of 1961. The prayer in the application was for a direction to hand over possession of the property in question to the Petitioner Society. Thus, in short, the case made out in the application was that the Collector should exercise powers under Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (8) of Rule 85 of the said Rules of 1961 and in particular the Sub-clause (b) of Clause (ii) thereof. 4. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected by the Collector. In the impugned order dated 24th December, 2010, the subject mentioned is of Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second) Ordinance Act, 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Ordinance”). The Application made by the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that said Ordinance is not applicable to the Petitioner. The impugned order shows a complete non-application of mind. The Petitioner had not invoked the provisions of the said Ordinance but the application was under a specific provision of the said Act of 1960 and the said Rules 1961. Only on the ground of non-application of mind, ash 3 wp-2127.11 the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER: (i) The impugned order dated 24th December, 2010 is quashed and set aside and the application made by the Petitioner ( Exhibit-A to the Petition) is restored to the file of the 1st Respondent. (ii) The 1st Respondent shall decide the said application afresh on its own merits. (iii) The Application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is produced before the 1st Respondent. (iv) The contention of the parties on merits are kept open. (v) The Petition is disposed of on above terms. (vi) The 1st Respondent-the District Collector, Satara, shall act upon an authenticated copy of this order. ( A.S. OKA, J )