1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8288 OF 2009 Bhagwandas Moolchand Bajaj ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents Shri V. D. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. D. Rayarikar, AGP. Ms. Usha R. Tiwari, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 7th MAY, 2010. P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing. 3. The writ petition takes exception to the order passed by Respondent No.2 on 12th May 2009 thereby granting certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 in favour of Respondent No.3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the said 2 order granting certificate under section 101 is passed ex-parte without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 4. The Petitioner after passing of the impugned order by Respondent No.2 filed an application with Respondent No.2 for recalling of the order granting certificate under section 101. This application of the Petitioner was allowed by the Assistant Registrar on 1st July, 2009 and the proceedings under section 101 were re-opened and the petitioner was directed to remain present for the hearing. The Respondent No.2, however, at later stage by an order dated 6th August, 2009 rejected the Petitioner’s application for recalling the order on the ground that the circular dated 3rd March, 2001 which enabled the Respondent No.1-Assistant Registrar to recall his order is subsequently cancelled on 12th September, 2008. 5. The fact remains that the certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was issued in favour of Respondent No.3 and against the Petitioner without granting an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. This fact is supported by the order of Respondent No.2 dated 1st July, 2009. The petitioner in pursuant of the order dated 17th December, 2009 passed in the above writ petition, has deposited an amount of Rs.6,31,000/- with the Respondent No.3-Society. The impugned order since passed without following the principles of natural 3 justice is required to be interfered with in my jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, even though remedy of revision is available to the Petitioner under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960, especially when the Petitioner has deposited 50% of amount of the Recovery Certificate granted under the impugned order with Respondent No.3-Society. In the above facts and circumstances, I am if the opinion that the ends of justice will be met by passing the following order: i) The impugned order dated 12th May, 2009 and order dated 6th August, 2009 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, F/N. Ward Mumbai is quashed and set-aside and the matter is remanded back to Respondent No.2. ii) The Respondent No.2- Assistant Registrar to decide the proceedings filed by Respondent No.3 under section 101 afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and Respondent No.3. iii) The Petitioner and Respondent No.3 shall remain present before the Respondent No.2 on 14th June, 2010. The learned Assistant Registrar shall thereafter decide Respondent Nos.3’s application under section 101 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 4 a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. The writ petition is disposed of, in above terms. 6. The parties are at liberty to file additional replies and pleadings. 7. Needless to mention that the amount deposited by the petitioner with the Respondent No.3-Society will be subject to the outcome of the proceedings. (R. V. MORE, J.)