1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4653 OF 2008 S. Albert Rayen & anr. Petitioners vs. V.K.Shankar Narayan & ors. Respondents Mr.Y.R.Naik forthe petitioner. Mr.C.J.Sawant, Senior Advocate i/by Mr.Nitin Dhumal for Respondents 1 to 3. Mr.P.P.Kakade,AGP for Respondents 6 and 7. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 8th July, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr.Naik, the learned counsel for the petitioner,Mr.C.J.Sawant, the learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr.Kakade, the learned AGP for Respondent Nos.6 and 7. 2. The petitioner takes exception to the order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai whereby the respondent Nos.1 to 4’s appeal under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, "the said Act") is admitted and stay to the order dated 28.5.2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies under section 78(1) of the said Act came to be granted. 2 3. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies appointed an administrator under Section 78(1) of the said Act on respondent No.4-society for failure on the part of members of Managing Committee of respondent no.4 to give bonds as required under Section 73(1-AB) of the said Act. This order is challenged by respondent nos. 1 to 4 by way of Appeal under section 152 of the said Act before the Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mumbai Region, Mumbai. After hearing both the petitioners and respondent nos. 1 to 4, the learned Divisional Joint Registrar formed opinion that all the points and contentions raised by the rival parties requires verification/confirmatrion by calling Record and proceeding from the lower authority. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted and stay is granted. The appeal itself is kept for hearing on 21.7.2008. 4. Mr.Naik, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 and specially para 79 of the said judgment in order to substantiate his case that disqualified persons should not hold the office. He also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition Writ Petition Writ Petition No.137/2008-Mr.S.R.Pathare No.137/2008-Mr.S.R.Pathare No.137/2008-Mr.S.R.Pathare & ors vs.The State of & ors vs.The State of & ors vs.The State of Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra & ors. & ors. & ors. 3 5. Mr.C.J.Sawant, the learned senior counsel for respondents 1 to 3 supported the order impugned in the petition by contending the points raised in this petition can be raised before the Appellate Authority and no need to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, in my opinion, there is no merit in the writ petition. By the impugned order, the respondent Nos.1 to 4’s Appeal is admitted by the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Appeal filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 is the statutory appeal under section 152 of the said Act and during the pendency of Appeal, stay is granted to the order which is impugned in the Appeal. The Appeal itself is kept for hearing on 21.07.2008. In my opinion, the contentions raised by Mr.Naik, the learned counsel for the petitioners, can be raised before the Appellate Authority. 7. The ratio of the Apex Court judgment in Sushil Kumar (supra) and in Writ Petition No.137/08 (supra), cannot be made applicable to the present case since the facts of the present case are altogether different. 8. The respondent nos.1 to 4 have availed the remedy of statutory appeal available under section 152 of the said 4 Act. The Appeal itself is fixed for final hearing on 21.07.2008. In my opinion, there is no propriety to interfere in the impugned order. 9. The petition is devoid of any substance and same is, therefore, dismissed. Mr.Naik expresses apprehension that the above appeal may not be decided expressly, though same is at present fixed for hearing on 21.6.2008. In that view of the matter and in the interest of justice, the learned Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai, is directed to hear and dispose of respondent No.1 to 4 Appeal being Appeal No.153/2008 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]