1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5387 OF 2010 Shri Gudu Harilal Hedau .. Petitioner Vs Shri Harshvardhan Patil & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Guddu Hedau, Petitioner in person. Shri R.M. Patne, AGP for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard the petitioner appearing in person. It appears that on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner, an order under Section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was passed by the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies by which an administrator was appointed. Perusal of the order dated 21st January, 2009 passed by the Joint Registrar shows that the administrator was appointed only on the ground that certain information was not supplied to the petitioner appearing in person under the Right to Information Act by the society. The said order was challenged by the members of the society by filing a revision application before the State Government. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 25th March, 2009 passed by the State Government by which the order appointing an administrator was set aside on the ground that there was no effective consultation made with the federal society before passing an order under Section 78(1) of the said Act. The Appellate 2 Authority noted that the only ground on which the administrator was appointed was that the information was not supplied to the petitioner by the society under the Right to Information Act. 2. When a query was put to the petitioner appearing in person as to whether he needs legal assistance, he stated that he does not desire to engage an advocate. He has various grievances against the society such as failure of the society to issue share certificate to him. Adequate remedies are provided to the petitioner appearing in person under the provisions of the said Act, if his grievance is that he has not been made a member or he has not been provided with the share certificate by the society. The Petitioner has not addressed the Court on availability of any legal ground to appoint an administrator. He has made general grievances against the members of the Society. The administrator could not have been appointed only on the ground that the society did not furnish information to the petitioner appearing in person under the Right to Information Act. Moreover, the finding of the revisional authority is that there was no effective consultation with the federal society before passing an order of Administrator. In the circumstances, it is not possible to interfere with the order passed by the State Government. Hence, the petition is rejected. However, it is made clear that all remedies of the Petitioner against the society are kept open. (A.S.OKA, J)