1 (WP9684.10) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9684 OF 2010 Shri Sayed Wajdali Sangamneheri and others .... Petitioners. V/s State of Maharashtra and others .... Respondents. Mr. V.G. Ghosalkar for the Petitioners. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. C.P. Deogirikar for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 14th February, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for Respondents. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Minister, Co-operation, State of Maharashtra dated 27/07/2010 in appeal No.23 of 2001. By the said order, the Hon’ble Minister was pleased to grant sanction to prosecute the petitioners herein as required under section 148(3). 2 (WP9684.10) 3. It is firstly submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that the application for sanction which was preferred before the Divisional Joint Registrar was under section 145 and 147, whereas the application has to be made under section 148(3). 4. It is a well settled position in law that merely because sections which are quoted in the application are wrong, that would not make the application not maintainable. In my view, the said submission, therefore, cannot be accepted. 5. The second submission which is made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, against the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, only Revision Application under section 144 of the Co-operative Societies Act could have been filed since the appeal against that order was not maintainable in view of provisions of section 152 of the Act. He submitted that the learned Minister also has heard the said matter and decided it as an appeal. He submitted that though the same authority had jurisdiction to hear the appeal as well as revision application, the scope of exercising jurisdiction by the same authority while deciding the appeal and revision would be different. 6. The learned Counsel for Respondents submitted that the same authority had jurisdiction to decide the revision application and merely because it was referred to as appeal, the said proceedings cannot be said to be without 3 (WP9684.10) jurisdiction. In support of the said submission, he relied upon the judgment the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Videocon Appliances Ltd. vs. Maker Chambers V. Premises Co-op. Socy. Ltd.1. He invited my attention to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paras 10 and 11 of the said judgment. 7. In my view, there is some substance in the second submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. It is an admitted position that appeal under section 152 of the said Act is not maintainable against the order of rejection of sanction under section 148(3) of the said Act, though revision application also could be heard by the same authority viz Minister of Co-operation. Yet, the parameters for deciding appeal and revision are different. In appeal, the first appellate court has a right to re-appreciate the evidence and take an independent decision, whereas, in revision, scope is limited. 8. The judgment on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for Respondents, in my view, would not of any assistance to the Respondents since the issue involved in that case was regarding authority prescribed under section 22(2) and under section 23(2) and the learned Single Judge held that since the authority was identical, the Registrar exercising power under section 22(2) was equally empowered to consider if there is a refusal, whether the 1 2006(2) Mh.L.J.388 4 (WP9684.10) refusal of membership of society is legal and valid. In the present case, issue involved is different. The ratio of the said judgment, therefore, would not apply to the facts of the present case. 9. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Minister is quashed and set aside. Petitioners are permitted to convert the said appeal into revision under section 154 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today. The Hon’ble Minister is directed to decide the revision application as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of three months. 10. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 5 (WP9684.10)