1 901 wp.7277.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7277 OF 2011 Kailas Shravan Borse. ... Petitioner Versus Dangsaundane Adivasi Vividh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. P.N.Joshi for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.S.Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 21. Mr. M.N.Sandhyanshiv for Respondent No.5. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 03 rd October, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5. I have also heard the learned AGP for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 21. 2 An appeal was preferred by the Petitioner and some of the Respondents for challenging the order dated 30 th June, 2011 passed by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies by which the Managing Committee of the Respondent No.1 – Society was removed 2 901 wp.7277.11 in exercise of powers under Section 73 (H) and 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). Under the said order, the Respondent No.4 was appointed as the Administrator for a period of two months. In the appeal preferred by the Petitioner and others, ad-interim stay was granted by the Appellate Authority by which the operation of the order dated 30 th June, 2011 was stayed. A revision application was preferred by the Respondent No.5 against the said order. By the impugned order, the State Government allowed the revision application and set aside the order of ad-interim stay dated 28 th July, 2011. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that there was no reason for the Revisional Authority to interfere with the ad-interim relief granted by the Appellate Authority. He has placed on record order dated 29 th September, 2011 by which Returning Officer has been appointed by the District Deputy Registrar for holding the election of the Managing Committee of the Respondent No.1. He pointed out that now the election programme has been also announced by the Returning 3 901 wp.7277.11 Officer. 3 The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 opposed the petition. He submitted that there is a further order passed by the Assistant Registrar on 15 th July, 2011 by which a committee of the Administrator was appointed. He submits that even the said order has been subjected to appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar in which the interim relief has been granted. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. In the substantive appeal preferred by the Petitioners and others, ad-interim stay of the drastic order of appointing administrator was granted, which was ordered to be continued till the disposal of the appeal. In the said order, the Divisional Joint Registrar stated that on 30 th June, 2011, the appeal was fixed for filing written statement of the Respondents. Against this order, on the revision application filed by the Respondent No.5, the State Government has interfered. Perusal of the impugned order shows that there is hardly any reason assigned for setting aside 4 901 wp.7277.11 the order of stay. If it was found that the order of stay was passed by the Appellate Authority without hearing the Respondents, the State Government could have directed the aggrieved party to apply before the Appellate Authority for vacating the stay. The interim relief granted pending a substantive appeal could not have been vacated by the Revisional Authority in this fashion. 5 Hence, the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority will have to be quashed and set aside with a direction to the Divisional Joint Registrar to hear the appeal in a time bound schedule. If the appeal preferred against the subsequent order dated 15 th July, 2011 is pending, the same shall be also taken up for hearing alongwith the present appeal. 6 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned judgment and order passed by the State Government on 25 th August, 2011 is quashed and set aside and the Revision Application No.656 of 2011 stands dismissed ; 5 901 wp.7277.11 ii. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the Appeal No. A-73 of 2011 as expeditiously as possible and within a period of one month from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is produced before the Appellate Authority ; iii. If the appeal preferred for challenging the subsequent order dated 15 th July, 2011 is pending, even the said appeal shall be heard alongwith the said appeal ; iv. All contentions of the parties on merit are kept open ; and v. The writ petition is allowed on above terms. [ A.S.OKA, J ]