1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2455/2011 (SAKET MAGAS VARGIYA AUYDYOGIK SAHAKARI SANSTHA VERSUS DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOC. & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.K. Tambde, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 16.08.2010 under Section 102(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the interim order of liquidation dated 08.04.2010 was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Divisional Joint Registrar could not have decided the appeal by the impugned order dated 27.01.2011 without issuing notices to the respondents. Shri Pathan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, submitted that the Deputy Registrar had issued as many as three notices to the petitioner before passing the interim order of liquidation. By those notices, according to the 2 learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioner was asked to produce the documents and by the third notice, the petitioner was informed that in case, the petitioner does not remain present along with the documents, appropriate action would be taken against the petitioner. In this background, according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it cannot be said that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before passing the interim order of liquidation. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that while dismissing the appeal, the Divisional Joint Registrar was not required to issue notices to the respondents in the appeal as the same would be necessary in case a favourable order is passed in favour of the appellant. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Deputy Registrar did not commit any error in passing the order under Section 102(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the Divisional Joint Registrar did not commit any error in confirming the same. On a perusal of the interim order of liquidation, it is clear that though the petitioner-Society was issued three communications for production of the record and for remaining present before the authorities, the petitioner-Society failed to comply with the said notices. By the third and the last notice, the petitioner was informed that in case, the petitioner does not remain present in the Office of the Deputy Registrar along with the documents, appropriate action would be taken against the petitioner. It appears from a perusal of the orders that an opportunity was granted to the petitioner before an interim order of liquidation was passed. Moreover, it is necessary to 3 note that the petitioner has not raised any ground about the non-receipt of the three communications in the appeal filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar. It is merely stated in one of the grounds that an opportunity was not granted to the petitioner before an interim order of liquidation was passed. It is not the case of the petitioner that it was not served with any of the three notices. The Divisional Joint Registrar rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner without issuing any notice to the other party as on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, the Divisional Joint Registrar found that the petitioner-Society had violated the provisions of the bylaws and also the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Divisional Joint Registrar observed that the petitioner-Society had not admittedly carried out the audit of the accounts of the society for the last seven years. The Divisional Joint Registrar found that the petitioner-society had not complied with the provisions of Section 81 and 82 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act. The Divisional Joint Registrar observed that the petitioner-society had neither conducted any elections nor had convened any Annual General Meetings. While dismissing an appeal, it is not necessary to issue notice to the other side. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Divisional Joint Registrar rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-Society. The order appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 4 In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE