1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7384 OF 2008 Dipak Nandlal Shah ....Petitioner Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar Co-op.Societies & Ors. ...Respondents Shri R.V.Govilkar, Senior Advocate with Shri K.N.Kandekar i/b. J.B.Vashi for the Petitioner. Shri Dilip Shukla i/b. M/s. P.V. Nichani & Co, for Respondent No.4 Shri P.P.Kakade, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5. Shri Venkatesh Shastry, for Respondent Nos. 6 to 8. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED : 26th February, 2009. P.C. Admittedly, an Appeal against the order under section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is pending. By impugned order after considering the rival contentions and on application filed by the third persons, the learned Authority, vacated the order. The grievance that the Petitioner was not heard is not correct. 2 The roznama itself shows that on 8th September, 2008 as the date was preponed, the notices were issued accordingly. The Advocate for the Petitioner/Appellant was also present. The Petitioner has only filed a reply to the earlier application filed by some of the third persons for impleading them as a party as well as for vacating stay. Merely because another application of one Mr. Luthra was also pending and he could not file reply to the said application, that itself cannot be a reason to interfere with the order passed after hearing both the parties. I see no perversity in the order, as now the Appeal itself is fixed for hearing on 4th March, 2009. It is desirable that the concerned Authority to hear that appeal within six weeks and dispose of the appeal accordingly. It is needless to mention that the administrator should act in accordance with law in all respects. The Petition is disposed of, accordingly. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)