(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7029 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7036 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO. 7029 OF 2010 Jalgaon Taluka Macchimar Sahakari Society Limited, Jalgaon, Taluka & District : Jalgaon, Through its Chairman, Shri Hiralal Devram Bhoi, Age : 59 years, Occupation : Fisherman. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Agricultural, Animal Husbandry And Fishery Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Commissioner of Fisheries, Maharashtra State, Bandra (E), Taraporwala Macchalaya, Netaji Subhash Marg, Charni Road, Mumbai-2. 3. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Fishery), Maharashtra State, Mumbai. (2) 4. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Milk), Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. 5. Jay Bajarang Macchimar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shirsoli, Vasantwadi Tanda, Taluka & District : Jalgaon, Through its Chairman. .. Respondents. ....................... WRIT PETITION NO. 7036 OF 2010 Jalgaon Taluka Macchimar Sahakari Society Limited, Jalgaon, Taluka & District : Jalgaon, Through its Chairman, Shri Hiralal Devram Bhoi, Age : 59 years, Occupation : Fisherman. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Agricultural, Animal Husbandry And Fishery Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Commissioner of Fisheries, Maharashtra State, Bandra (E), Taraporwala Macchalaya, Netaji Subhash Marg, Charni Road, Mumbai-2. (3) 3. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Fishery), Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 4. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Milk), Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. 5. Gramin Pani Puravatha Sinchan Macchimar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shirsoli, Vasantwadi Tanda, Taluka & District : Jalgaon, Through its Chairman. .. Respondents. ........................ Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate, for petitioner in both petitions. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4 in both petitions. Mr. S.R. Bharad, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for respondent no.5 in both petitions. ************ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH APRIL 2011 (4) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. Adv. Mr. A.G. Talhar, appearing for the petitioner, states that order on merits of appeal under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, "1960 Act"), and on condonation of delay has been passed together and thus there is failure to exercise jurisdiction. According to him, both the petitioners are operating since long for entire Taluka and by valid amendment, the area of operation was reduced to certain part of the Tahsil (certain tanks). This amendment to bye-laws was not questioned by respective respondent no.5 / Society within time and belated challenge has been mechanically entertained. His contention is, respective respondent no.5 are registered on a particular tank and hence by amended provisions of bye-laws or then by unamended also, no prejudice is caused to respective respondent no.5. The appeals filed by them, therefore, were not only without any merit but also not maintainable. 3. Adv. Mr. S.R. Bharad, holding for Adv. Mr. V.D. Salunke, for respective respondent no.5, and learned AGP Mr. (5) S.K. Tambe, for respondent nos.1 to 4, have supported the impugned order. They contend that remedy of filing revision under Section 154 of 1960 Act is available to the petitioner. It is further stated that the respective respondent no.5 were already operating on tanks which are now specifically included by amendment of bye-laws within area of petitioner. There was never any challenge to allotment of those tanks to respective respondent no.5 or then to their fishing operations on the said tanks. According to Adv. Mr. Bharad, the amendment has been obtained clandestinely only with a view to deprive respective respondent no.5 of those tanks. He contends that there are various Government Circulars issued from time to time and the Societies are entitled to operate on all tanks within area of 10 Kms. from the place at which it is registered. 4. After hearing respective Counsel, I find that facts are not much in dispute. The respective respondent no.5 had filed appeal under Section 152 of 1960 Act with prayer for condonation of delay pleading that they got knowledge of amendment to bye-laws belatedly. Prayer for condonation of delay is opposed by the present petitioner and simultaneously they have also advanced arguments on merits. The appellate authority was not called on to decide prayer for condonation of delay first. The appellate authority has looked into that prayer (6) and also merits of the matter simultaneously and then has passed the impugned orders. 5. The contention of the petitioner, that there is failure to exercise jurisdiction by the appellate authority, is therefore, misconceived and in writ jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere only on the ground that prayer for condonation of delay and merits of the matter have been considered together. 6. The fact that the respective respondent no.5 / Societies had been operating on tanks specifically mentioned in amended bye-laws of petitioner cannot be in dispute at this stage. Even if it is in dispute, it raises a disputed question of fact and appellate authority has remanded matter back to the Assistant Registrar to find out correct position in this respect. In any case, it is not the contention of the present petitioner that those tanks were allotted to the petitioner after amendment of their bye-laws. 7. The question whether respective respondent no.5 / Societies have been legally allotted those tanks or then tanks needed to be allotted only to the petitioner / Society as per Government Circulars regulating the allotment of those tanks to Fishing Cooperative Societies, can be gone into by the Assistant (7) Registrar, if the matter is remanded to him. 8. In this situation, respondent no.4 / Assistant Registrar is directed to decide the matter remitted to him by respondent no.2, as early as possible and in any case, within period of two months after parties appear before him. Parties are directed to appear before that authority on 9th May 2011 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. 9. Needless to mention, that this court has made required comments on facts, only to facilitate consideration of controversy presented to it. It has not recorded any finding in that respect and Assistant Registrar is free to arrive at his own conclusions in accordance with law and in the light of the material produced before him by the parties. 10. With these directions, petitions are disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7036etc