1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4508 OF 2005 Janardan Krishna Jadhav & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shivaji Sahakari Pani Puravatha Sanstha and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for petitioners Mr.P.G.Lad for respondent No.1. Mr.D.A.Patil, A.G.P. for State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 17th January 2006. P.C. . Heard Mr.Patwardhan for petitioner and 2 Mr.Lad for respondent No.1. Learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities exercising powers under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and more particularly sections 22 and 23 thereof. 3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for petitioners that application for membership preferred by petitioners was in fact not considered by the cooperative society in question at all. On the other hand, before the authorities, dispute was raised as to whether the application was considered by the society and in that behalf, authorities not being satisfied with the materials produced, called upon parties to tender affidavits or further evidence to support their contentions. 4. Mr.Patwardhan submits that when there was 3 dispute as to whether the applications were at all placed for consideration of the managing committee/ general body of the society, the authorities should not have allowed revision application and reversed the order of appellate authority. He, therefore, submits that the order dated 21st March 2005 be set aside and the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Coop.Society Tasgaon dated 8th September 2003 be confirmed. 4. Mr.Lad invites my attention to the affidavit filed by first respondent and submits that the Chairman has pointed out as to in what circumstances, petitioners’ application could not be considered. However, Mr.Lad was fair enough in pointing out that the minutes of meeting where such application was considered have not been annexed. In all fairness, he submits that if it is the only grievance of petitioners, then, first respondent society is willing to re-consider their applications for membership afresh. 4 5. In my view, instead of deciding the larger controversy, in the light of the statement of Mr.Lad, it would be appropriate to direct the first respondent society to re-consider the applications made by petitioners for membership in accordance with law. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides. 6. First respondent society to convey its decision on the issue of membership of petitioners to them within a period of three months from today. Petition disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)