IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1771 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1771 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1771 OF 2008. The Liquidator Bhudergad Nagari ..Petitioner. V/s. Shri Sitaram Ganpat Gate ..Respondent. Mr P. D. Dalvi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr V. A. Sonpal, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. DATED: 16.09. 2008. DATED: 16.09. 2008. DATED: 16.09. 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 16.4.2007 passed in Revision Application No.225 of 2005 by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune (Shri J. S. Panpatte). 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner pointed out, from the impugned order, finding recorded by the revisional authority that no sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Vadgaon Maval, District Pune. 3. While challenging above finding it is brought to my notice that the hearings were given on 15.6.2004, 19.8.2004, 24.8.2004, 30.8.2004, 18.9.2004, 29.9.2004, 8.10.2004, 18.7.2005, 20.7.2005. Record shows that atleast on the different dates opportunity of hearing was given and on some of the dates same was availed by the respondent. Despite the then Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune set aside the order holding that no sufficient opportunity was given. Even, on merits learned counsel for the petitioner criticised this order and tried to demonstrate illegality crept in the impugned order. However, during the course of hearing, both parties agreed that this order be set aside without recording reasons in support of the order and matter be remitted back to the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune for consideration afresh. 4. In the above view of the matter, the revision petition bearing No. 225 of 2005 impugned order is set aside by consent of parties and the said revision petition is restored to the file of the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative ( 3 ) Societies Pune Division, Pune with direction to hear and dispose of the revision application by a reasoned order with expeditious despatch at any rate on or before 31.12.2008. All rival contentions are kept open. 5. At this juncture, it will not be out of place to mention that the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader appearing in this case was specifically directed to file affidavit of the author of the order to justify as to how he observed in the order that sufficient opportunity was not given, especially, when the matter was fixed on nine different dates and hearing was afforded to the respondent. 6. Pursuant to the above directions, Mr J. S. Panpatte filed his affidavit, relevant portion of which reads as under. "I say that the Respondents were always aggrieved by the fact that they were not given "sufficient" opportunity. I say that I was of the opinion that though they were present in the Court in the proceedings on ( 4 ) the respective dates, it would be possible that they would not be able to advance their case and thus "sufficient" opportunity of hearing could not have been given to them. In the facts and circumstances, I say that the order is passed on merits after considering evidence and law even when "sufficient" opportunity could not be availed by the parties despite the fact that they were present in the proceeding." (Emphasis supplied) (Emphasis supplied) (Emphasis supplied). 7. The explanation furnished above makes no sense. It is neither here nor there. It conveys nothing. If the sufficient opportunity could not be availed by the party that does not mean that they were not given an opportunity of hearing. The observations made in the order do not support the record. Number of orders passed by Mr Panpatte, author of the impugned order, came to my notice, which were found to be not only unsustainable but perverse. 8. Today, I am told that Mr Panpatte, who has decided this revision application is transferred as Deputy Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Navi Mumbai, District Thane, which is ( 5 ) supposed to be an important assignment requiring discharge of duties with due deligence. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Municipal Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Navi Mumbai and also State Government, so that both can take cognizance of the style of working of the subject Officer before assigning any job of carrying responsibility of deciding the rights of the citizens. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the Revisional Authority on 15.10.2008 for hearing afresh. 10. The petition stands disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)