1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4807 OF 2008 Rajan Ramchand Gera .......Petitioner versus Radha Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and ors ....... Respondents. Mr. Vinod Jadhav for the Petitioner Ms. Sunita Poddar for the Respondents 1. Mr. R. M. Patne AGP for Respondents 2 to 5. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 30TH JULY, 2008. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner questions the legality, validity and propriety of an order dated 9-5-2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies Bombay Division, Bombay dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner on the ground of non-compliance of provisions of sub 2 section 2(A) of section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 3. The Respondent no.1 society of which the petitioner is a member, obtained a recovery certificate under section 101 of the Co-operative Societies Act against the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, filed revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar. Sub section 2(A) of section 154 of the Co-operative Societies Act casts an obligation on the revisional applicant to deposit 50% of the amount before the revision can be entertained. The petitioner's revision application was pending before the Divisional Joint Registrar and a dispute was raised in regard to the fact as to whether the petitioner has deposited 50% of the amount as mandated by section 2(A) of section 154 of the Act. Hence the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in this court bearing No. 1281/06. This court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 17-4-2007, directing the Divisional Joint Registrar to conduct a further hearing touching the question of deposit of 50% of the amount by the petitioner. In compliance of the order dated 17-4-2007 passed by this court, the Divisional Joint Registrar has enquiried into the said aspect and reached a conclusion that the petitioner/applicant had to deposit a further amount of Rs. 19,376/- for fully complying with the mandate of section 154(2 A) of the Act. No fault can be found with the said 3 finding and the present petitioner has deposited the said amount within a period of less than a month from the date of the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. The amount has been deposited by the petitioner with the society on 3rd June 2008. Strangely enough instead of granting sometime to the petitioner to deposit the amount after holding that the petitioner is in deficit of sum of Rs. 19,376/-, the Revisional authority proceeded to dismiss the revision itself. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on compliance of sub section 2(A) of section 154, the petitioner accrues the right to have this revision application adjudicated in accordance with law on merit. However, as the revisional court did not grant any time to deposit the amount it has committed patent illegality in dismissing the revision itself. The learned counsel for the respondent society does not dispute the fact that no time was granted by the revisional court to enable the petitioner to deposit a sum fo Rs. 19,376/-. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has already deposited the amount of Rs. 19,376/- with the society. If this be the position, the petitioner is entitled to have his revision application to be decided on merit. The impugned order dismissing the revision application on account of non-compliance of section 154 2(A) is wholly unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9th May 2008 is quashed and set aside. The revision application dismissed by the revisional authority stands restored to file. The Divisional Joint Registrar shall decide the revision application in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of eight weeks from today. (A.P. DESHPANDE, J)