1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9518 OF 2009 Shikarpuri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Pradeep B. Mandhyan i/b Ms. Leena Nichani for the petitioners. Mr. R.M. Patne, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 16TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges three orders passed by the Assistant Registrar rejecting the application made by the petitioner society for permission to amend the bye-laws of the society. 3. In my view, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy available by way of revision under section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Consequently, I am not entitled to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under 2 Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Dhanpur Sugar Mill v. State of U.P., (2007) 8 SCC 338, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the remedy available is not efficacious remedy, as such the writ jurisdiction can be exercised. In the case of Dhanpur Sugar Mill (supra), the Supreme Court has held a policy decision was taken by the government and as such approaching the government again would have been futile. In the present case, no policy decision has been taken by the government regarding the proposed amendment of the bye-laws. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had previously approached the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in revision against the first order of the Assistant Registrar rejecting his approval for the proposed bye-laws. That revision was dismissed and therefore no useful purpose would be served by approaching the Registrar again. It may be noted that the petitioner had previously challenged the order of the Registrar before this Court. This Court, without setting aside the order of the Registrar, directed the petitioner to approach the Assistant Registrar again by giving proper reasons for the amendment. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the 3 Assistant Registrar by giving reasons. It cannot be said that if the petitioner approaches the Registrar Again, he would not consider the reasons which have been given by the petitioner in pursuance of the direction issued in the previous writ petition by this Court. There is no reason to assume that the Registrar would confirm the previous view without considering the fresh reasons given by the petitioner society in the application for approval of the bye-laws, especially in view of the directions issued by this Court in the previous writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)