1 wp8102.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8102 OF 2010 [ Suresh Rambhau Rane & Ors. vs. State of Mah. & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. A.L. Tikle, Advocate holding for Mr. Sudhir K. Chavan, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for R-1 & 2. Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for R-3. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 16TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : Learned Counsel makes a prayer for adjournment on the ground that the Advocate on record is out of station, however, such prayer is refused. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 and learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have raised 2 wp8102.10 preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition. According to them, the certificate is issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Nandura Tq. Nandura District Buldana and therefore, writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. 3. It is not necessary to go into the said aspect. Admittedly, the petitioners herein received notice of the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 for issuing certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Their contention is that no next date of hearing was communicated to them and as a result, they could not attend the proceedings before respondent No.2 on subsequent date of hearing and therefore,no proper opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioners. 3 wp8102.10 4. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned A.G.P. appearing for State and learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. Perused synopsis, pleadings in the petition and annexures thereto. It is not in dispute that notice was issued to the petitioners and the petitioners did receive notice from respondent No.2. The contentions of the petitioners that, no proper opportunity of hearing was given to them is required to be rejected. The petitioners once having appeared before respondent No.2 on a particular date is supposed to know the next date of hearing. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to them, cannot be accepted. Secondly, against the order of the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, the revision is provided under Section 154 of the 4 wp8102.10 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. If the petitioners aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, they can prefer the revision before the Revisional Authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again has reminded that in the financial matters, the Court should be loath to interfere. 5. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the writ petition and same stands rejected. However, it is open for the petitioners to file the revision before the Revisional Authority if they are so advised. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/AUG11