( 1 ) wp9938.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9938 OF 2010 1. Sopan s/o. Ninu Bade, Age. 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Ruikheda, Tq. Muktai Nagar, District. Jalgaon. .. Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Cooperation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. .. Respondents 2. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Muktai Nagar, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. Sahkar Mitra Shri Chandrakant Hari Bade Sir Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Warangaon, District Jalgaon, Through its Manager. 4. Premchand Ninu Bade, Age. Major, Occ. Agri., R/o. Ruikheda, Tq. Muktai Nagar, Dist. Jalgaon. 5. Suresh Rambhau Rane, Age. Major, Occ. Agri., R/o. At Post Malkapur, Tq. Malkapur, Dist. Buldhana. Mr. A.D. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. V.S. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2; Mr. V.B. Anjanwatikar, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 & 5; Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 15.09.2011 ( 2 ) wp9938.10 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the legality of the Certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, dated 19th March, 2009, issued by the Assistant Registrar of Muktai Nagar, Dist. Jalgaon. On perusal of the said certificate, it is clear that it is issued without recording reasons. In-fact, the certificate is only a filled up format of certificate. The legality of the certificate is challenged mainly on the ground that the learned Assistant Registrar did not follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 86-A to F of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Rules and has not passed reasoned judgment. There appears no challenge to the fact that the learned Assistant Registrar did not record reasons before issuing the certificate. The law is laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sundeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2010 (6) ALL MR 550, that such certificate cannot be said to be lawful. Thus it is clear that impugned certificate is patently invalid and deserves to be set ( 3 ) wp9938.10 aside. The petition, therefore, should succeed. 3. The petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Assistant Registrar, who shall decide the case as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 86-A to F of the Rules giving opportunity of hearing etc. to the petitioner and by passing reasoned order. This shall be done within three months from today. The parties shall appear before the Assistant Registrar on 29th September, 2011. Rule made absolute accordingly. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/SEP11/wp9938.10ok