1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1857/2010 Chandrapur Z. P. Employees Credit Coop. Soc. Ltd. Chandrapur Vs. The Divisional Jt. Registrar, Coop. Soc. Nagpur and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S. A. Marathe, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Sonare, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. A. H.Patil, Adv. for respondents 3 and 4. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 15, 2010. Contention of the petitioner-society is property was purchased on 4/4/2000 by paying amount of Rs. 23,11,000/- as per Government valuation it costs was not more than Rs. 4,84,000/-. The sale was not with prior permission of District Deputy Registrar and permission has been accorded three months after purchase i.e. 5th July, 2000. The petitioner-society wanted to adduce evidence in this respect but that was not given. It is urged that resolution of society allegedly passed for such purchase is also fabricated. 2 Learned AGP for respondent no.1 has pointed out that there is no plea in the writ petition and no material is produced before any of the authorities to show that lands in the vicinity were sold at much less cost. It is stated that resolution passed by the Society was never challenged before the Competent Forum. Attention is also invited to the ground on which adjournment was sought by the society. It appears that when the matter was listed before the Competent Authority the representatives of the petitioner were present but left the office and five days thereafter moved application urging that because of some important work of society, the representatives could not participate in hearing. The contention that there was no prior permission is also considered by the Divisional Joint Registrar. Permission is ultimately granted on 5th July 2000 for 3 purchase by paying consideration of Rs. 23,11,000/-. This consideration is not demonstrated to be either arbitrary or exorbitant by producing any material. I, therefore, find that only effort of petitioner is to raise some technical objection. No prejudice as such is demonstrated. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by Joint Deputy Registrar. The petition is therefore rejected. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.