1 LPA187/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.187 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.697 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9937 OF 2010 M/s Rashmi Enclave ...Appellants v/s Mr Saroj A. Shah and others ...Respondents Mr R.D. Suryawanshi for Appellants. Mr N.P. Karnik for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA JJ. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011. 2 LPA187/11 P.C. :- 1] Heard learned counsel for appellants and the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The order which is impugned in revision before the State Government is an order made by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thane under section 79 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 appointing an Officer by name P.Y. Rathod to issue to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 maintenance bill and electricity bill in relation to a shop in the building of the Society. Initially, this Court had granted interim order staying operation of this order. The learned Single Judge however, by the order impugned in this appeal, has vacated that interim order on finding that the order has already been implemented. The revision filed by the appellants against the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar who in appeal confirmed the order of the Deputy Registrar, is pending before the State Government. The learned Single Judge has already issued the direction to the State Government to decide the revision filed by the 3 LPA187/11 appellants at an early date. The only part of the order passed by the leaned Single Judge against which the appellants are making a grievance is the order by which interim stay granted to the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 20th January 2010 has been vacated. In our opinion, no interference with that order is called for because all that is done by the order dated 20th January 2010 is that an Officer has been appointed to issue maintenance bill and electricity bill in relation to a shop in the building of the Society in favour of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6. Even assuming that that Officer has issued the bills in favour of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 and they even make payments pursuant to those bills, that will be done by them obviously as the revision filed by the appellants is pending before the State Government subject to the result of the appeal and the State Government at the final disposal of revision would be free to make appropriate order in that regard and any implementation of the order which is impugned before the State Government during the pendency of the 4 LPA187/11 revisional proceedings will not adversely affect the interest of appellants. In this view of the matter therefore, no interference is called. Appeal is rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE ANOOP V. MOHTA )