ssp 1 WP 3193 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3193 OF 2011 Mahaveer Urban Co­operative Bank Ltd. .....Petitioner versus The District Deputy Registrar, Co­operative Society, Solapur and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni i/by Mr.I.M.Khairdi, for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Anand S. Kulkarni, for respondent No.4. CORAM: RANJIT MORE, J. DATE: 06th MAY, 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Bhosale, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.Kulkarni, for respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 17­01­2011 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co­ operative Societies Act, in Revision Application No.310 of 2010, thereby refusing stay to the order passed by the respondent No.1 on 05­08­2010. 3. The issue is about the deemed membership to the petitioner’s bank. Respondent No.4 made an application to the respondent No.1 claiming that he along with other 104 members have applied to the petitioner’s bank for membership, however within stipulated period ssp 2 WP 3193 of 2011 membership is not granted. By the order dated 05­08­2010, respondent No.1 granted deemed membership to the respondent No.4 and other 104 persons with effect from 27­05­2009. By clause 3 of the said order, respondent No.1 also issued general directions to the petitioner bank to enroll other persons who have applied for membership. The petitioner has challenged this order by way of a revision under Section 154 of the Act and applied for stay. However, by the impugned order, the same was rejected and therefore, the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, does not make any grievance so far as clause Nos.1 and 2 of the operative part of the order dated 05­08­2010 of respondent No.1 is concerned, since the revision is pending before the revisional authority. So far as clause No.3 is concerned, he objects the same on the ground that no general directions can be issued to the petitioner bank. He submitted that names of these persons, nor any particulars are given by the respondent No.4. These persons never approached respondent No.1 and therefore, general directions could not have been issued. He submitted that respondent No.2 revisional authority mechanically rejected this prayer for stay to the Clause No.3 of the operative part of respondent No.1. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 does not dispute that the persons in respect of whom general directions are issued ssp 3 WP 3193 of 2011 by the respondent No.1 were not before the respondent No.1. He also fairly concedes that the names and particulars of these persons were not supplied to the respondent No.1. He states that he has no objection to stay to the Clause No.3 of the operative part of the order of respondent No.1. However, he requests for expeditious hearing of the revision. In the above circumstances, writ petition is disposed of by passing the following order. (a) During the pendency and final disposal of the Revision No.310 of 2010 filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2, the effect, operation and implementation of Clause No.3 of the operative part of the order dated 05­08­2010 passed by the respondent No.1, shall remain stayed. (b) Hearing of the Revision No.310 of 2010 is expedited. Respondent No.2 is directed to hear and dispose of the said revision as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of copy of this order of this Court. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. ( RANJIT MORE, J. )