1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5357 of 2010 Aai Tuljabhavani Matsya & Zinga Vyasay Co-op. Society Ltd. ...Versus... State of Maharashtra & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 11.11.2011. This is second round of litigation. Earlier W.P. No. 1849/09 was disposed of on 4.12.2009. Then M.C.A. No. 103/10 was filed and this Court granted relief as claimed therein. But during the course of arguments in that M.C.A. it was pointed out to this Court that the writ petition was not properly formulated and hence liberty to file fresh petition on same cause of action was granted. Accordingly this petition has been filed. Mr.Dhore, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised following contentions : (i) the petitioner-society was registered on Morna tank, which formed subject matter of the present writ petition. (ii) Respondent no.5 society is not 2 registered on that tank. (iii) If it is to be presumed that both the societies have jurisdiction on that tank then as per Government Resolution dated 5.10.2002 the tank needs to be auctioned. (iv) Respondent no.5-society was given time of ten days to clear the outstanding loan amount of Rs.1,65,682/- and that amount was not cleared even in that period. He points out that the amount has been cleared much thereafter and respondent no.5 has not filed any reply. Mr.Pathan, learned AGP, has pointed out that the tank in question falls in the jurisdiction of respondent no.5- society. It has been allotted for a period of five years in the year 2008 and that period of five years is now expiring in June 2013. According to him, in this situation, no interference is warranted. During the course of arguments, learned AGP stated that the area of tank in question exceeds 200 hectares and two societies can be registered on it. We have perused the relevant bye-laws and we find that the bye-laws produced by the petitioner of its society reveals mention of Morna tank. The bye-laws of respondent no.5 shows jurisdiction not in relation to any particular tank but in relation to certain 3 villages/cities. The area of the tanks on which petitioner-society appears to have been registered is 19 hectares and 14 hectares. The area of Morna tank on which petitioner claims to have been registered is 348 hectares. Facts show that the said tank has been allotted and was being allotted to respondent no.5-society since the year 1971. We are, therefore, not in a position to accept the contention that respondent no.5-society is not registered on Morna tank. The reasons leading to filing of present writ petition in the year 2010 are already explained to us by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Those reasons are not very relevant and what we find is that period of three years has already expired and respondent no.5 has continued to operate on the tank exclusively. In this situation, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage merely because this Court has allowed filing of writ petition afresh. We leave all the contentions open. If the minimum or maximum area required for registering on society is of 200 hectares, then it cannot be forgotten that petitioner has area of 33 hectares. The area of the tank allotted to respondent no.5 is more than 200 hectares and hence eligibility of petitioner for allotment of portion of that tank could have been considered by the concerned authority. Hence, with liberty to the 4 petitioner to raise appropriate claim in this respect when the fresh allotment of the tank shall be done in June 2013 or even before that if contingency arises, we dispose of writ petition. Judge Judge /TA/