ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4365 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 4365 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 4365 OF 2007 Akshay Co-Op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Gopal Ramchandra Chilap & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.D.K.Ghaisas for the Petitioner. Mr.Ajay Patil for Respondent Nos.1 to 7. Mrs.Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos.8, 11 and 14. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 30th July, 2008 : 30th July, 2008 : 30th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard Mr.Ghaisas, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr.Ajay Patil for Respondent Nos.1 to 7 and Mrs. Bhende, the learned AGP for Respondent No.8,11 and 14. 2. The Petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act-1960. Some members of the Petitioners society filed complaint before Respondent No.8 against the Respondent Nos.1 to 7, Ex-members of managing committee of the Petitioner society alleging mismanagement. One Mr.P.P.Deshmukh, Retired Deputy ( 2 ) Registrar was appointed by the Respondent No.8 under Section 83 of the Co-operative Societies Act-1960 to enquire into the said complaint. The said Deshmukh submitted his report which was forwarded by Respondent No.8 to the Petitioner Society and thereafter the Petitioner Society applied to the Respondent No.8 for appointment of authorized officer under Section 88 of the said Act. One Mr.Tandalekar, Retired Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies was appointed as the Authorized Officer, to inquire into and fix the responsibility of the loss caused by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. The said Tandalekar submitted the report stating that Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are responsible for the loss of the society and liability was fixed. The Respondent No.8, thereafter, directed the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 and one Mr.Vekhande to remit an amount to the Society in pursuant to the aforesaid report. The Respondent Nos.1 to 7 filed appeal before the Joint Registrar which was dismissed. Thereafter, they filed the Revision before Respondent No.14 Minister and the same was allowed. This order is impugned in the present Petition. 3. Mr.Ghaisas, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner makes two submissions viz. the impugned ( 3 ) order is passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and secondly the learned Minister could not have allowed the Revision merely because there are two contradictory reports of the experts. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, in my opinion both the submissions of Mr.Ghaisas are without any merits. So far as the first submission is concerned, Respondent No.14, the learned Minister has observed that one Dr.Ashok Desai on behalf of Respondent No.1 (present Petitioner) is present and it is also further observed that after hearing the arguments of concerned parties, and directing them to submit their arguments in writing , the matter is closed for orders. It is true that Mr.Ghaisas in the Petition stated that the Petitioner has not given any opportunity of hearing, however, into teeth of the above observations made by the Minister’s in the impugned order, the question whether hearing was given or not becomes the disputed question of facts which I cannot entertain in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) 5. This takes me to consider the Second submission of Mr.Ghaisas, that the Minister could not have allowed the Revision of Respondent Nos.1 to 7 on the ground that the two reports are contradictory., In my view, no fault can be found in the impugned order. The liability against Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 was fixed under Section 88 of the Co-operative Societies Act in pursuant to the report of architect by name Mr.Pataskar. It is not disputed that the report of Architect Muley who is a Government Valuer is also on record. The report of Muley is contrary to the report of Shri Pataskar. In the circumstances, approach adopted by the Minister cannot be faulted when he held that Respondent No. 8 Registrar could not have preferred one report when both the reports are on record. 6. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the Petition so as to enable me to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The Petition is accordingly, dismissed. ( 5 ) ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)