:1: :1: :1: srp. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2808 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 2808 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 2808 OF 2009 The Bombay Catholic Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. ..Petitioners. Versus. The Divisinal Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai & Others. ..Respondents. --- Mr. Pravin Samdani, Sr. Advocate a/w Vineet Naik, Darshan Mehta & Trupti Shetty i/b M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co., for the petitioner. Mr. Milind Sathe, Sr. Advocate a/w Jamshed Ansari i/b M/s. Mohdbhai & Co., for respondent no.4. Mr. Kevic Setalwad a/w Mr. Cyrus Bharucha i/b M/s. Mulla & Mulla for respondent no.3. Mr. S. R. Nargolkar, A.G.P. for the Respondent - State CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE: March 6, 2009. DATE: March 6, 2009. DATE: March 6, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. Appeal Nos. 246 of 2007 and 27 of 2008 are pending before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai. In order to transfer these matters, application has been filed before the Minister. At this stage, we need not go into the grounds for transfer and to find out whether there is merit in the said grounds or not. What we find is that under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Minister has no power to transfer a proceeding pending before the Divisional Joint Registrar. Therefore, the grievance that the Minister is not available to dispose :2: :2: :2: of the revision petition which has been filed to get a transfer order, is not tenable and therefore we directly deal with the matter. 2. What we find is that, that the file is pending before the Divisional Joint Registrar and several dates have been given in the matter. It appears that partly the matter has been heard and curiously when the petitioner reported that he wants to file a transfer application, the Registrar closed the file for judgment. 3. Let the fact as it is. Now, Mr. Nargolkar, learned AGP appearing for the respondent no.1 State makes a statement that respondent no.1 is ready to give a hearing to the petitioner and also ready to take on record the written submissions or arguments on behalf of the petitioner. What we find is that, that the grievance of the petitioner at this stage can be redressed by giving certain directions to respondent no.1. The other respondents have no objection for giving such directions to respondent no.1. 4. Therefore, we direct respondent no.1 that respondent no.1 shall hear the matter on 23rd March 2009. Fresh notices are not required to be issued, since all parties are before this Court. Parties shall present themselves before respondent no.1 on 23rd March 2009 at 11.00 a.m.. If the hearing is not complete by 23rd March :3: :3: :3: 2009 evening, Respondent no.1 shall hear the matter de die in diem, i.e., hearing shall continue on the next working day till the hearing is complete. That means the hearing shall continue on the subsequent working days till it is completely heard. The notes of the argument shall be taken by respondent no.1 while the oral arguments are advanced on either sides. After completion of the hearing of appeals, further 7 days time shall be given by respondent no.1 to the parties to file their written submissions or arguments. Thereafter within 15 days both appeals shall be disposed of by respondent no.1 by a speaking order and deal with every point raised by either party on either sides either orally or in writing. It should be well reasoned order passed by respondent no.1. If the order is passed adverse to either of the parties, the said order shall not be executed by respondent no.1 or the parties in whose favour it has been passed for a period of four weeks from the date of its communication to the parties so as to enable the parties to approach the superior forums challenging the said order. 5. We make it clear that we have not considered the transfer application on merit and in case the appeal is decided adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the said ground as against the respondent no.1 in a further proceeding which will be initiated by the petitioner. 6. Petition is disposed of accordingly. :4: :4: :4: (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)