wp3937-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3937 OF 2011 Pravin M. Mangela .. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Uday Warunjikar i/by Rajesh A. Tekale for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Sanjay Sandhan for respondent No.3. Mr.Devendra Sharma for respondent No.6. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20th JUNE 2011. P.C.: 1] The petitioner has succeeded before the Divisional Joint Registrar, inasmuch as the revision application to which he is party applicant No.2 has been allowed and the Deputy Registrar is directed to furnish documents in terms of the application dated 24th February 2011 to all applicants who had filed revision application. But in the meanwhile, some intervention application was made before the Divisional Joint Registrar and by the final order even that is allowed. 2] The Revision application as is clear was directed against the show cause notice dated 18th January 2011 issued by wp3937-11.doc 2 the Deputy Registrar under section 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Now, while allowing the revision application, it appears from the record that the show cause notice is not set aside nor has the Divisional Joint Registrar interfered with the proceedings which are pending before the Deputy Registrar. However, he has taken note of the limited grievance of the applicants who included petitioner No.2, that they must get reasonable opportunity to defend themselves and for that purpose, they must get copies of relevant documents and papers. Their application for furnishing them with such copies has been allowed. 3] If the Divisional Joint Registrar was of the opinion that there are other persons who are interested in the affairs of the society and at whose instance the proceedings have been initiated, they must also be before the authorities, he should have ascertained whether any application has been made for intervention. That application for intervention appears to have been made during the course of revisional proceedings. The Divisional Joint Registrar, therefore, had no business to take wp3937-11.doc 3 cognisance of such an application and allow it while deciding petitioner's revision application. 4] In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of with a direction that the Deputy Registrar shall furnish copies of the relevant documents and papers to the petitioner and all others against whom notice under section 78 of MCS Act has been issued. However, the Divisional Joint Registrar's directions to permit intervention is set aside. The application for intervention will have to be made by the respondent No.4 before the Dy.Registrar and if such an application is made, the Dy.Registrar will decide it on merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations and/or directions of the Divisional Joint Registrar. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)