vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6721 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6721 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6721 OF 2008 Hanuman Vivdh Karyakari Sahakari (Vikas) Seva Sanstha Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. late M.L.A. S.D. Patil Vividh Karyakari Sahakari (Vikas) Seva Sanstha Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.D. Dalvi for Petitioner Mr.S.R. nargolkar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for Resp. No.5 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 3, 2008 DECEMBER 3, 2008 DECEMBER 3, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This petition challenges the order passed by Respondent No.4 in revision application No.374 of 2007. By this order, the revision filed by Respondent No.5, the Chief Promoter of Respondent No.1 has been allowed and the order passed by the Joint Registrar Cooperative societies has been quashed. The Joint Registrar had refused to register Respondent No.1 as a multipurpose cooperative society in the same region where the petitioner is functioning. The Revisional authority on consideration of the material before him has accepted the contention of Respondent Nos.1 and 5 and set aside the impugned order. The revisional authority has held that there was material on record to indicate that the : 2 : petitioner and other societies which were hitherto functioning in the area had consented to the registration of the Respondent No.1 society. 2. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the circular issued by the Government on 5.3.2007 indicates that no multipurpose cooperative society should be registered thereafter in order to ensure that the existing societies function in an economically viable environment. He submits that by registering the respondent society after this circular was issued, the respondents have violated the same. 3. Admittedly, the proposal for registration of the Respondent No.1 society was submitted prior to 5.3.2007. Even assuming the circular is applicable to a proposal which is considered after the circular was issued, because it had been submitted on an earlier date, there is no pleading in the petition that the petitioner society has been caused prejudice by the registration of the Respondent No.5 society. The order impugned in this petition has been passed on 18.10.2007 and the petition has been filed almost after a year. Despite this, there is no pleading at all to indicate that any prejudice is caused to the petitioner in registering the respondent society. : 3 : 4. In these circumstances, the petition is rejected.