*1* wp.10195.10.928.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10195 OF 2010 Grenville Co-operative Housing Society Limited. ..Petitioner -Versus- State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Ms.Iva Bansal and Mr.Digvijay Chopra, for the Petitioner. Mr.R.B.Jain i/b Legal Juris, for the Respondent No.5. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 29th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 The Petitioner-Society has approached this Court seeking a relief that the Respondent No.2-Minister has no jurisdiction to decide a revision application which is filed before him by the contesting Respondent No.5. It is stated that the Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra, Respondent No.2 is the Minister for State, Co-operation & Textile, Respondent No.3 is the Divisional Joint Registrar and Respondent No.4 is the Deputy Registrar. The Respondent No.5 is a builder who has challenged an order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. The orders are to the effect of reserving the name and issuing a letter/permission to open the bank account. The Petitioner applied for formation of the co- operative housing society which request has been granted. The Respondent No.5 did not discharge its obligation in law, therefore, the Society was registered at the instance of the flat purchasers. Now the orders passed of such nature are being challenged and my attention is invited to the order dated 18.02.2010 of the Minister admitting a revision *2* wp.10195.10.928.sxw application of the Respondent No.5 and granting stay of the orders dated 05.01.2009 and 16.11.2009. The grievance is that the proceedings are kept pending indefinitely and that too by the authority which has no jurisdiction to entertain and try them. Further, in law the Respondent No. 5 has no locus to challenge the registration of the co-operative housing society. 2 The matter was kept back to enable the learned AGP to take instructions and make a statement as to why the revision application is kept pending and not decided till date. My attention is invited to the order dated 23.09.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.7247/2010 wherein the directions were issued to decide the revision application within a period of two weeks from the date of the said order. 3 A clear perusal of this order would clearly reveal that the Respondents have disobeyed the directions contained therein. They have not decided the revision application despite this Court directed them to decide it within two weeks from 23.09.2010. Ordinarily the Court would have taken this aspect seriously and issued appropriate directions including initiation of the contempt proceedings. However, on instructions from the appropriate authority, Mr.Patne, learned AGP, states that the pending revision application will be decided as expeditiously as possible and within a period of 10 days from today. It is clear from the record that the order passed on 18.02.2010 was an interim order and that the Minister was not deciding the matter and that is how the said Writ Petition had to be filed by the Petitioner-Society. That Writ Petition was disposed of on 23.09.2010 with direction as above. From 18.02.2010 till this date the Petitioner rightly points out that the Minister has no time to dispose of the proceedings. The proceedings were kept pending. Now, Mr.Patne states that the same Minister will pronounce the orders as the *3* wp.10195.10.928.sxw arguments have already been heard. These are not satisfactory state of affairs. It is not indicated when the arguments were heard and when the matter was last closed for orders. The authorities cannot decide the matters in this manner because it is well known that justice should not only be done, but seen to be done. The tendency to sit over the files deserves to be strongly deprecated. In such circumstances and in the facts peculiar to this case bearing in mind the conduct of the Revisional Authority till date, it is directed that the Revision Application No. 109/2010 shall be heard by the Secretary in the Department of Co- operation & Textile and he will pass the requisite orders thereon after hearing both sides, within a period of fifteen days from today. Needless to clarify that all contentions including that of the jurisdiction, merits, maintainability, etc. are kept open. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)