( 1 ) wp3864.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3864 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9783 OF 2011 1. Gopalpura Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik .. Petitioners Sanstha Maryadit, at Nanaj, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar Through its Director, Tushar Pawar, Age. 50 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. At Nanaj, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Malik Saheb Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, Nanaj, Tal. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Chairman. 3. Sarswati Mahila Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, Potewadi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Chairman. 4. Hanuman Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, Gurewadi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Chairman, 5. Chatrapati Shahu Maharaj Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Chairman. ( 2 ) wp3864.11 6. Nandadevi Mahila Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, Nannaj, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Chairman. 7. Tararani Mahila Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, Chobhewadi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Chairman. 8. Babasaheb Pawar Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, Nannaj, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Chairman. 9. Shridatta Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, Nannaj, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Chairman. 10. Jagdamba Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, Potewadi, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Chairman. 11. Ahilyadevi Mahila Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Chairman. Versus 1. The Divisional Deputy Registrar .. Respondents Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Nashik Division, Nashik. ( 3 ) wp3864.11 2. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Diary), Ahmednagar, 3. The Chairman/Secretary, Jamkhed Taluka Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Va Prakriya Sangha Maryadit, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar. Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Y.V. Kakade, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 26.08.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges a very peculiar order passed by the Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik, in Revision No. 2 of 2011, in which respondent No.3 was the revision applicant and the petitioners were respondent Nos.1 to 11. 2. The facts pertaining to this litigation in short can be stated as under :- 3. The petitioners are 11 (eleven) co-operative milk societies situated in various villages of Jamkhed ( 4 ) wp3864.11 Taluka, Dist. Ahmednagar. On 15th December, 2010, respondent No.2 – Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar, issued notice under Section 102 and 103 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act to the petitioners. The petitioners filed reply to the notice soon thereafter, but thereafter in their absence, respondent No.2 passed an order appointing liquidator on 25th January, 2011. The petitioners, thereafter, went before respondent No.2 and after hearing them he withdrew his order dated 25th January, 2011. Soon thereafter respondent No.3, who was not a party to the earlier litigation challenged the order dated 19th March, 2011, passed by respondent No.2 before the Divisional Deputy Registrar. Said authority then passed the impugned order on 11th May, 2011. This order was passed in absence of the petitioners. However, apparently this order would not cause prejudice to the petitioners because the Authority remanded the case back and indicated that respondent No.2 should now re-hear the case for deciding as to whether the liquidator is required to be appointed on the petitioners. However, while passing the order the learned Officer did not set aside the order dated 25th January, 2011. It appears it was inadvertence and could not be a purposeful act. Since the learned Officer wanted the petitioners and respondent No.2 to have a fresh round of litigation in respect of the notices issued to the ( 5 ) wp3864.11 petitioners on 15th December, 2010, the parties should be brought to the status which they had on that day. On that day, admittedly no liquidator was appointed. The notice simply suggested the petitioners that they should show cause why liquidator should not be appointed on them. So, the status of the petitioners that prevailed on 15th December, 2010 is required to be reinstated. In view of this the order dated 25th January, 2011, appointing the liquidator ought to be set aside. 4. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be addition to the impugned order. The order dated 25th January, 2011, appointing the liquidator on the petitioners is set aside. Respondent No.2 shall now hear the parties and dispose of the case as soon as possible, but in any case within four weeks from today. It is further directed that in case respondent No.2 appoints liquidator on the petitioner societies, said order shall remain in abeyance for two weeks from the date of receipt of order by the petitioners. The impugned order does not contemplate respondent No.3’s intervention now at the level of litigation which is reinstated between the petitioners and respondent No.2. However, the question of respondent No.3’s locus to intervene in this litigation is kept open and the Authorities are not precluded from deciding the same in accordance with law in future. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. ( 6 ) wp3864.11 5. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, Civil Application No. 9783 of 2011 for fresh notice does not survive and stands disposed of. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/AUG11/wp3864.11ok