1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1155 OF 2009 Shivshakti Audyogik Kamgar Sahakari Gruhnirman Mandal, Tq. & Dist-Dhule, Through its Chairman, Ramesh Fakir Borkar, R/o-23-B, Shivshakti, Tq. & Dist-Dhule. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Co-operation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dhule. 3) The Assistant Registrar/ Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dhule, Tq. & Dist-Dhule. ...RESPONDENTS. .... Mr.P.D. Bachate Advocate h/f. Mr. N.L. Choudhari Advocate for petitioner. Mr.N.H. Borade, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. .... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 27TH JULY, 2009. 2 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.G.P. for the Respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 7th October, 2008 passed by the Assistant Registrar/ Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Section 102 (1) (c) (iv) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order without giving any hearing to them. He pointed out from the affidavit in reply dated 19th June, 2009 filed by Respondent No.3, in which it is specifically stated that the Petitioners submitted their reply on 4th November, 2008, and before that the impugned order came to be passed i.e. on 7th October, 2008. This itself shows that without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner, the 3 Respondent No.3 passed impugned order on 7th October, 2008 itself. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the Authority in the matter of Chandrapur Zilla Sahakari Krushi and Gramin Bahuudeshiya Development Bank Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2004 (1) ALL M.R. Page 266, in which the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that principles of natural justice cannot be dispensed with. It is further held by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that Registrar is duty bound to hear the concerned society before passing of an interim order under Section 102 (1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 4. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the Respondents is not able to justify how the order dated 7th October, 2008 came to be passed when the Petitioners have filed their reply on 4th November, 2008. 5. Considering these facts, the impugned order dated 4 7th October, 2008 passed by the Assistant Registrar/ Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dhule is set aside. 6. The Respondents are at liberty to take appropriate steps after giving hearing to the Petitioners. 7. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/JULY09/wp1155.09