1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3386 OF 2007 Yeshwantrao Chavan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mydt .. Petitioner Vs 1. Shree Vitthal Co-operative Credit Society Ltd and ors .. Respondents Mr. A.S.Desai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr R.V.Govilkar i/b S.S.Aradhe for respondent no.1. Ms S.S.Bhende, AGP, for respondent nos 2,3,5 and 6. Mr P.S.Dani, for respondent no.4. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 31/08/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition impugns the order dated 9.4.2007 passed by respondent no.4, whereby the Revision Application filed by respondent no.-1-society has been allowed and the order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar has been set aside. Before the Divisional Joint Registrar, the order dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, registering respondent no.1-society was under challenge. I have perused the impugned orders so also the other material placed on record. The order passed by respondent no.5 T 2 is dated 9.4.2007. Though the petition was filed in April, 2007 itself, no interim order was passed by this Court and as a result thereof, admittedly, respondent no.1 – society has been functioning since last more than two years. In this backdrop, I examined the order passed by respondent no.5. Respondent no. 5 has observed that the registration of respondent no.1 would not adversely affect the functioning of the petitioner-society. It may be true that the registration of another society within the area of operation of existing society may affect the existing society to some extent, but in the present case, it cannot be stated that it would adversely affect the interest of the petitioner-society. It has come on record that the area of operation of the petitioner-society is more than one taluka, whereas the area of operation of respondent no.1 society is only one taluka. The authority below having found, as provided for under section 4 of the Maharahstra Co-operative Societies Act, that respondent no.1-society is economically viable, they have registered the same. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order, impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 3