1 wp7546.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7546 OF 2010 Sarika Ramchandra Mane & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karveer,Kolhapur & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Amit Borkar for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P for respondent nos.1,5 & 6 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 4, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents and the learned A.G.P for the 1st, 5th and 6th respondents. The grievance made by the petitioners is that the notice of revision application no.520 of 2010 was not served to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents has produced for perusal of the Court a copy obtained by the said respondents from the State Government which shows that a Clerk of the 7th petitioner accepted the notice of the revision application on behalf of the 1st to 6th petitioners. 2 When it was found that the alleged acknowledgment signed by the Clerk does not bear the date, the learned A.G.P submitted that instead of going into controversy about the service, the impugned order may be quashed and 2 wp7546.sxw set aside and the revision application be ordered to be heard afresh. The suggestion is reasonable in as much as there is no material on record of revision application produced before the Court to show that the notice was served to the petitioners before the revision application was heard. This Court had called for the record of the revision application. This Court has perused the record. Perusal of the record shows that there is no endorsement made by any Officer that the notice of the revision application has been served to the respondents in the revision application. A copy of the acknowledgment signed by the 7th petitioner which is tendered across the bar is also not the part of the record of the revision application. The revision application could not have been taken up for hearing unless there was a proper service report received by the revisional authority. In large number of matters this Court has observed that appeals and revision applications arising out of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960 are being decided by the State Government without verifying whether service of notice to the concerned parties has been effected. The State will have to appoint an officer to scrutinise the appeals and revision applications before the same are taken up for final disposal. The appeals and revision applications should be scrutinised and only after the same are marked as ready for final hearing, the same should be placed for final hearing. If such procedure is adopted, it will curtail the further litigations. 3 Writ petition is disposed of by passing the following order : i) Impugned order dated 8th September 2010 is quashed and set aside and the revision application no.520 of 3 wp7546.sxw 2010 is restored to the file. ii)The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 22nd October 2010 at 11.00 a.m only for fixing the date of hearing of the revision application. iii)It is made clear that no further notice of the revision application will be served to any of the parties. iv)The revision application shall be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 15th December 2010. v) All contentions of the parties on merits of the revision application are kept open and it is made clear that the order impugned has been set aside only in view of the statement of learned A.G.P. vi)Petition is partly allowed with no order as to costs. JUDGE