1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7623 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7623 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Thombre for the Petitioner, Shri Suryawanshi for Respondent No.6, Mr. G. V. MOhekar for Respondent No.7 and learned A.G.P. Mrs. Shinde for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. Action under section 80 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 is initiated for recovery of records of a society by name Sant Tukaram Sahakari Bhadekaru Malaki Gruha Nirman Sanstha Ltd. Parli-Vaijanath, District Beed. The petitioner is ex-Chairman and pointed out that as per bylaws the records need to be with Respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 is Ex-Secretary. The direction issued under section 80 (1) of the 1960 Act on 13th March, 2009 was questioned by petitioner by filing Revision under section 154 of 1960 Act. In that revision, he pointed out his old-age and deliberate harassment at the hands of Ex-Secretary. The Revisional Authority has found that though records of society may not be with petitioner, he has to fairly face the proceedings because of his position in the society. It has, therefore, 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7623 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. rejected that revision. This order dated 31st May, 2010 is questioned before this Court. 3. After hearing respective counsel I find that when records are not with the Petitioner he has no reason to oppose action under section 80 of 1960 Act. Respondent No.7 has not filed any reply before this Court. But, then, in action under section 80 the competent authority can always make attempt to trace out and recover the records in accordance with law. No prejudice is caused to petitioner because of impugned directions. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is rejected. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:26/04/2011. ans/7623