1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.30 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8310 OF 2007 Nazreth Michael Mankar .. Appellant. Versus The State of Maharahtra & Or .. Respondents. Mr.A.G. Damle for the appellant. Mr.R.S. Ghadge i/by Mr.A.S. Desai for respondent No.2. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 25th February, 2008 DATED : 25th February, 2008 DATED : 25th February, 2008 P.C. : 1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22-11-2007. The Appellate Authority reversed the order passed by the Initial Authority under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and held that the appointment of Administrator of the Society was not in consonance with the settled principle and no financial or other irregularities are noticed which would justify appointment of the Administrator. This order of the Appellate Authority was challenged before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Civil Writ Petition No.8310 of 2007. By the 2 impugned order dated 20-11-2007, the learned Single Judge found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Authorities. 2. In the present case, one of the argument of the appellant before us is that the order of the Appellant Authority is violative of principles of AUDI-ALTERAM-PARTEM, in asmuch as no hearing was given to the Appellant before the impugned order is passed. This argument was dealt with by the learned Single Judge, who observed that it was not obligatory upon the Appellate Authority to implead the present Appellant as a party specifically by an order or not, having heard the petitioner at great length and such an order cannot be said to be vitiated. This finding is further fortified by the fact that the Appellate Authority though not technically implead the present appellant as a party but had grant them full opportunity of being heard to the extent that they have also filed written arguments before the Authorities. At internal page No.8 of the order of Appellate Authority, following portion needs to be noticed. "Following oral / written arguments made by Shri.Mankar, Caveator. On 14.08.2000, Shri.Nazreth Miecal, Member Vasai Macchimar Sarvodaya Co-op. Society Ltd., Pachubandar, Tal. Vasai, Dist. Thane filed his petition being as Caveator. On 31.08.2007, during the course of hearing 3 Shri. Mankar was present. As well as on 11.09.2007 and 21.09.2007 he was not present but on his behalf Advocate Swar was given an opportunity to submit his Say on 9.10.207 and 16.1.2007 respectively." 3. Bare reading of the above shows that the argument raised before us is without any substance. The Appellants were granted hearing by the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority as well as the learned Single Judge has found, as a matter of fact, that there were no financial irregularities or such noticeable irregularities which would justify passing of an order under Section 78 of the said Act. Nothing has been sculled out in the present appeal. 4. The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR, J.