MP 1 wp10071_10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10071 OF 2010 Suresh Mariaswamy Maravar .. Petitioner Versus Apna Ghar Unit No. 7 Co-operative Housing Society Limited and others .. Respondents Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b. Ms. J. P. Thakkar for the Petitioner. Mr. Y. H. Memon for Respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 03, 2011 P. C. : Rule made returnable four weeks. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th November 2010 vide which the learned Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, respondent No. 3 herein, has allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 1 herein. 3. The petitioner made an application for membership to the respondent No. 1. Though the petitioner was entitled to the membership, it was denied by the respondent No. 1. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before the respondent No. 2 i.e. District Deputy Registrar which came to be allowed by giving reasons. Being aggrieved thereby, a revision was preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein. The said revision is allowed. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition. MP 2 wp10071_10 4. Mr. Godbole, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order passed by the respondent No. 3 is passed only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the registered agreement. He submits that as a matter of fact, the entire stamp duty is paid by the present petitioner . 5. As against this, Mr. Memon, the learned Counsel for respondents, submits that the said agreement is of 1995 and the same has not been produced by the petitioner upto 2009. It is, therefore, submitted that the entire transaction is sham and bogus. It is further submitted that the criminal complaint is filed against the present petitioner alongwith the others, where the present petitioner is also arrested. 6. I find that it is not necessary for me to go into these aspects. By now, it is well settled principle of law that every order passed by the judicial or qua-judicial authorities has to be a speaking order and that the authority should give cogent and sound reasons in support of the order. The respondent No. 2 by a well-reasoned order had allowed the application filed by the petitioner herein. The said decision has been reversed by the respondent No. 3 in the revision by a cursory order without assigning sound and cogent reasons. In that view of the matter, I find that it would be in the interests of justice that the respondent No. 3 reconsiders the matter again after hearing the parties. 7. Petition is, therefore, allowed. Impugned order dated 20th November 2010 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 3 for considering it afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. MP 3 wp10071_10 8. It is further made clear that this Court has not considered the matter on merits and the respondent No. 3 would decide the revision on the basis of material placed before him, in accordance with law. (B.R. GAVAI, J)