1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 85 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 43 of 2008 (D) Jaybhawani Matsyavyavsay Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Dhamangaon Gadhi, Tah. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati, Through its Secretary, Gajanan Mahadeorao Mesre ....APPELLANT. ...VERSUS... 1] The Hon’ble Minister for State, Fisheries Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Fisheries), Maharashtra State, having its office at Taraporwala Matsyalaya, Charni Road, Mumbai. 3] Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Fisheries), Maharashtra State, having its office at Congress Nagar, Amravati, Tah. and Dist. Amravati. 4] Shriram Machchimar Seva Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, having its office at Bundelpura, Achalpur, Tah. and Dist. Amravati, thrugh its Secretary Anil S/o Gendlal Gour ....RESPONDENTS =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. K.R.Lambat, Advocate for appellant. C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 3rd August, 2010. 2 1] Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2] By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 17.10.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 43 of 2008, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3] The writ petition was directed against the order dated 31.7.2007 passed by Respondent no.1 - the State of Maharashtra,, by which the order passed by respondent no.2 – Divisional Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, dated 23.5.2006 was confirmed. The Divisional Deputy Registrar confirmed the order passed by the respondent no.3 - Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, dated 22.5.2001, by which he allowed amendment of the bye-laws of respondent no.4 – society. 4] The sole contention urged by Mr. K.R.Lambat, learned counsel for the appellant is that respondent no.3 – Assistant Registrar while allowing the amendment of the bye-laws vide order dated 22.5.2001, did not give an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 5] When we specifically asked Mr. Lambat, learned counsel for the appellants whether such contention was urged/advanced before the learned Single Judge, when the writ petition was heard and disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2008, he replied in negative. However, he submitted that the said ground was raised in the memo of writ 3 petition. Merely because the ground was taken in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge was not expected to deal with this or any other ground taken in the writ petition, if the same was not urged/argued at the time of hearing of the petition for admission. Even on merits, we do not find any substance in this ground since both the lower authorities namely, Divisional Deputy Registrar and the Hon’ble Minister, have considered the case of the appellant on merits and then found that the area of operation of respondent no. 4 – society was rightly increased. The learned Single Judge, after having considered the merits of the case, has observed in the order that the members of respondent no.4 society are 326, whereas the members of the appellant society are hardly 57. That apart, the amendment of the bye-laws was allowed by the Assistant Registrar vide order dated 22.5.2001 and it was challenged after about 5 years by the appellants. 6] Keeping this all in view, we find no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal fails and disposed of as such. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale