AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6063 OF 2008 Shri Shishir Govind Aras. ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. P.M. Arjunwadkar for the petitioner. Ms. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for respondents 1 and 4. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for respondents 5, 6, 8 and 10. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 7TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner claims to be a promoter member of the LIC Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short, “the said Society”). According to him, respondents 5 to 10 claim to be members of the said Society. He is, however, not certain whether they are, in fact, members. AJN 2 In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that an inquiry be directed to be conducted in respect of the affairs of the said Society particularly against respondents 5 to 10 as regards misappropriation of funds of the said Society. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at some length. He submitted that the said Society was created in the year 1965. However, till date, no election has been held. He further submitted that the petitioner was never allowed to participate in any of the meeting of the said Society. He further submitted that the said Society is not maintaining proper accounts and inspection of the accounts is denied to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner addressed letter dated 3/3/2008 to the Commissioner of Co-operative Societies, Pune and to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune, making the above grievance, however he has not received any reply. In these circumstances, the AJN 3 petitioner has filed the present petition on 24/7/2008. Learned counsel submitted that after this petition was filed, respondent 4 initiated an inquiry and prepared a report in which he concluded that all the grievances of the petitioner are of personal nature. He thus absolved the said Society of all the allegations levelled against it. The said report is dated 14/11/2008. Learned counsel submitted that this report is an eye-wash. None of the grievances made against the respondents have been considered by respondent 4. He further submitted that it is only when the present writ petition was filed, fearing that this court will direct that action be taken against respondents 5 to 10 that this inquiry was initiated by the authorities. 3. Learned counsel for respondents 5, 6, 8 and 10 denied all the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative AJN 4 Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “the said Act”) a remedy of revision is available to the petitioner against report of respondent 4 dated 14/11/2008. Since alternative remedy is available, it would be appropriate if the petitioner adopts that remedy. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will file a revision within a period of two weeks from today. He, however, submitted that the report came to be prepared during the pendency of this writ petition. The petitioner was awaiting disposal of this writ petition and, therefore, he did not file any revision against the report of respondent 4. In the circumstances, there would be delay in filing the revision. He submitted that it is possible that the Divisional Joint Registrar will not entertain the revision because of the delay. 6. Under Section 154(3) of the said Act, the revisional authority has power to condone the delay if sufficient cause is made out. In this case, the inquiry was initiated AJN 5 after filing of the present writ petition and report came to be prepared during the pendency of the writ petition. Undoubtedly, the petitioner was awaiting the disposal of this writ petition. Therefore, in our opinion, time taken to approach the revisional authority cannot be termed as delay. Learned counsel for the respondents have fairly stated that the respondents shall not oppose the condonation of delay. In the circumstances, the revisional authority is expected to deal with the condonation application sympathetically. 7. We have not considered the merits of the rival contentions. However, looking to the nature of the allegations, we expect the revisional authority to consider each and every point raised by the petitioner with the seriousness it demands after hearing the concerned respondents. We expect the revisional authority to pass a reasoned order dealing with all contentions within a period of three months from the date of filing of the revision application. Needless to say that if the order AJN 6 passed by the revisional authority is against the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to adopt such appropriate remedy as may be available to him in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the revision application will be served on the Society on 18/8/2009. Learned counsel for the parties shall then appear before the Divisional Joint Registrar on 21/8/2009. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. 8. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [A.A. SAYED, J.]