1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.8550 of 2007 Shri Mallikarjun Vadar Kamgar Sahakar Sanstha Petitioner Vs. The Deputy Registrar & ors. Respondents Mr.I.M.Khairdi for petitioner. Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, AGP for resp.nos.1 to 4. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 3, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Khairdi, the learned counsel for the petitioner - Society. . Rule. . The learned AGP waives service for the respondents. . The petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. . The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative 2 Societies Act, 1960 ("the Act" for short) on 8/10/1958 with Registration No. P-4302/58. It claims to be providing employment to its members and the Audit of the Society is completed from time to time. On 22/12/2003 the respondent no.1 passed an order under Sections 102 and 103 of the Act winding up the Society temporarily. The very same officer passed yet another order on 31/3/2004 and cancelled / recalled the order dated 22/12/2003. Surprisingly and more shockingly the respondent no.1 passed yet another order on 5/4/2004 and confirmed the order passed earlier on 22/12/2003. The petitioner - Society filed Revision Application No.264 of 2006 under Section 154 of the Act before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies at Pune and the said revision has been dismissed on 22/6/2007. . When the order dated 22/12/2003 was withdrawn by the subsequent order dated 31/3/2004, there was no question of confirming the said temporary order dated 22/12/2003 and if the respondent no.1 was convinced that the petitioner - Society was required to be wound up, it was necessary to issue a fresh show cause notice and the required procedure under Sections 102 and 103 of the Act was necessarily to be 3 followed. The order dated 5/4/2004 purportedly communicated to the petitioner - Society on 28/4/2004, does not refer to the order dated 31/3/2004 by which the order dated 22/12/2003 was withdrawn. When the fresh order dated 5/4/2004 and communicated on 28/4/2004 was passed, the petitioner - Society was not heard and thus the principles of natural justice were violated. The Divisional Joint Registrar failed to apply his mind to the obtaining facts. Instead, he observed in the impugned order while dismissing the revision application that the respondent no.1 gave sufficient opportunity to the petitioner - Society by issuing the interim order on 22/12/2003 but he does not refer to the subsequent order dated 31/3/2004 by which the earlier interim order was recalled. Thus the order passed by the Revisional Authority also is perverse and without application of mind to the facts on record. . Hence the petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 dated 5/28-4-2004 and the revisional order dated 22/6/2007 passed by the respondent no.3 are hereby quashed and set aside. 4 . Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (B.H.MARL