1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1395 OF 2009 Vinod Agarwal .. Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Swapnil Bangar i/b Kalpesh J. Nansi for the petitioner Mr. S.N. Patil AGP for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 16 th JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Application no. 542 of 2006. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of flat no. 11 in building known as Shahin Apartment. He also claims that he is a member of respondent no.3 society. A recovery certificate was issued against the petitioner by Deputy Registrar in which an amount of Rs. 44,644/- was found due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent society. The petitioner disputed this amount. However, he submitted an amount of Rs. 17,632/- to respondent no. 3 which was accepted by the society. On 31st May, 2006, the Deputy Registrar, R 2 Ward, Mumbai rejected the recovery application. The petitioner claims to have furnished a further amount of Rs. 4,612/- to the society in compliance with the order dated 31st May, 2006. That amount was also accepted by respondent no.3 society. It appears, however, that the recovery application filed by respondent no. 3 society was rejected by the Dy. Registrar. The revision application no. 542 of 2006 on 29th September, 2006, filed by Respondent No. 3 against the order of the Deputy Registrar was also rejected. 3. The petitioner claims that he was given notice of the pending revision application only on 17th August 2007 and pursuant to that notice, he appeared before the Divisional Joint Registrar on 27th August, 2007. The petitioner claims that he was not furnished with all the papers of the proceedings of revision application and therefore, the application was adjourned and fixed for hearing on 10th June, 2008. Again, the petitioner placed on record the fact that he had not been served with all necessary documents including a copy of the revision application. It appears that on 18th August, 2008, the revision application has been decided exparte and the matter has been remanded to the Deputy Registrar. However, there does not appear to be any reference to the fact that the petitioner had brought to the notice of Divisional Joint Registrar that he had not been served with a 3 copy of revision application or any other material papers and documents. 4. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Divisional Joint Registrar has passed the orders without the pleadings of the petitioner being on record. He has not adverted to any of the necessary facts and has remanded the matter to the Deputy Registrar without any reasons. In my opinion, the order impugned suffers from severe infirmities and must be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 18th August, 2008 is set aside. 6. Although, notice was served to the respondent society, nobody appears for the society today. The petitioner disposed of accordingly. .......