1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4619 of 2008 (The Samata Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-op. Socy., and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.P. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri Mujumdar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 5 th October, 2010 This petition challenges the order dated 10-3-2008 passed in Revision No.585 of 2007 by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur, in exercise of the powers under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “the said Act”). The operative part of the order is reproduced below : “1. Revision No.585/2007 is partly allowed. 2. The stay granted on 8.8.2007 stands vacated. 3. The Respondent No.1 Deputy Registrar, C.S. City 2, Nagpur is hereby directed to decide the proceedings u/s 101 afresh by verifying the facts mentioned by the applicant, particularly statement of accounts on the basis of statutory audit report 2 dated 22.9.1007 as per law. 4. No order as to costs.” Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank, submits that the revision under Section 154 of the said Act before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, was challenging the order dated 4-8-2007 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, in the proceedings under Section 101 of the said Act. By this order, the application filed by respondent No.3 for dismissal of the dispute under Section 101 of the said Act on the ground that the petitioner-Bank has not supplied certain documents, has been rejected. He, therefore, submits that although the revisional authority has issued a direction for verification of the facts mentioned in the application along with the statement of accounts on the basis of the statutory audit report dated 22-9-2007, the application for dismissal of the dispute filed by respondent No.3 cannot be allowed. Shri Ghare, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, submits that in view of the directions issued by the Divisional Joint Registrar in the impugned order, he does not press the application for dismissal of the dispute. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank, submits that such an order could not have been passed in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the Divisional Joint Registrar. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Om Sai Pratibha Co-op. Hsg. Soc. v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2002(5) Bom.C.R. 177. 3 After going through the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank and after going through the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, I find that the Divisional Joint Registrar has not allowed the application for dismissal of the dispute under Section 101 of the said Act, but has merely directed verification of the facts mentioned by respondent No.3 along with the statement of accounts. Such a direction can be issued by the Divisional Joint Registrar under Section 154 of the said Act. In the result, there is no substance in the instant petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl