1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1597 OF 2010 (Shri Sadaram R. Chavare vs. Divisional Dy. Registrar of Coop. Societies & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JUNE 08, 2010. Heard Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the grievance made by the petitioner, this Court has issued notice for final disposal on 07.04.2010. Though the respondents are served, they have chosen not to appear. Shri Jaiswal, learned AGP is appearing for respondent No. 1 and he states that he is still awaiting instructions. The short contention of Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner is, federal society viz., Maharashtra State Cooperative Poultry Federation, Aklunj, District – Solapur, has been consulted as required by Section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He points out that in an appeal filed under Section 152 of the Act, present Respondents No. 3 and 4 specifically took a ground that consultation was not in accordance with the norms laid down by this Court in its 2 judgment in the case of Suresh vs. State, reported at 1987 Mh. L.J. 474. He states that this stand was given up during oral arguments and the appellate authority has considered the contention that Bhandara District Cooperative Bank was the apex society which needed to be consulted under the provisions of Section 78(1) of the Act. He argues that said society cannot be a federal society for consultation under that provision and that aspect is not even looked into by the appellate authority. The learned AGP supports the impugned order. He states that the contention was specifically raised in argument and that contention has been accepted as Respondent No. 2 – Cooperative Society is not the member of Maharashtra State Cooperative Poultry Federation. It is apparent that the authority which has passed the order under Section 78 of the Act, viz., Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society (Dairy) has consulted above mentioned poultry federation as Federal Society. The finding as to whether said poultry federation is federal society relevant for consultation under Section 78(1) of the Act or then it cannot be such federal society and Bhandara District Cooperative Bank is the concerned federal society is not recorded by the appellate authority. In appeal memo, ground raised by Respondents No. 3 & 4 was to the contrary. This aspect is also lost sight of by the appellate authority. The said order, therefore, shows non application of mind insofar 3 as this aspect is concerned. During arguments, it has transpired that the impugned order of Assistant Registrar (Milk), operating against Respondents No. 3 & 4 was stayed by the appellate authority and appellate authority has thereafter quashed and set aside the said order. With the result, Respondents No. 3 & 4 are continuing in office. In this situation, I find it proper to direct Respondent No. 2 – Appellate authority to consider the issue after hearing the parties in the light of observations made above. The impugned order dated 02.01.2010 passed by Respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside. Appeal No. 7 of 2009 along with interim order operating in it are restored back to the file of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 to decide the same within a period of eight weeks after the date of communication of this order to it. The parties to appear before that authority on 21st June 2010 and to abide by its further directions in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.