IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Ld) No.1058 of 2008 1. Shri Jiten M.Desai and others ..Petitioners vs. 1. Asstt.Registrar, Coop.Societies and others ..Respondents Mr.Sandeep Shinde i/b Mr.Sagar V.Kasar for petitioners. Mr.Pradeep Jadhav, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 4 and 6. Mr.Tejus Vora i/b M/s Tamhane and Co. for respondent no.5 CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 5th May, 2008 5th May, 2008 5th May, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioners are the original applicants before the Revisional Authority. They have filed the Revision Application challenging the Appellate Authority’s order dated 28th March, 2008 dismissing their appeal. The order passed on 5th December, 2006 by the Deputy Registrar, N Ward, Mumbai has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismisses the appeal and that is how the order under sec.78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 is confirmed and would become operative. 2. The petitioners apprehension is that their revision application though filed is not being heard. Their stay application is also pending. The result would be that the Administrator would come and take charge and renders the whole proceedings infructuous. 3. Reliance is placed upon the order passed by this Court in similar circumstances. 4. The matter was listed today to enable the learned A.G.P. to take instructions. Mr.Jadhav learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos.1, 4 and 6 makes a statement on instructions that the Revisional Authority would dispose of the revision application on merits within a period of 8 weeks from the date of appearance of the parties. He states that the Revisional Authority is willing to hear the revision application on 6th May, 2008 or on 13th May, 2008. The contesting respondent is respondent no.5. He has filed the affidavit. He brings to my notice certain developments and urges that attempt of the petitioners is to continue in management even though they are superseded and removed. They should not be permitted to do so because they are enrolling new members and transferring the flats/occupancies. In such circumstances, no equitable relief should be granted and the petition be dismissed. 5. After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that instead of this Court going into the rival contentions so also the revision application being pending, interest of justice would be subserved if the revisional authority is directed to dispose of the pending revision application within 8 weeks from the date of appearance of the parties. All concerned to appear before the Minister on 13th May, 2008 at 11.00 a.m. and the Revisional Authority to dispose of the Revision Application within a period of 8 weeks thereafter. All contentions on merits are kept open. During the pendency of the revision application, the petitioners shall manage and carry on only day to day’s affairs. They will not take any major policy decisions including enrolling of members or permitting transfer of flats/tenements in the building of respondent no.3 society. 6. Respondent no.5 would be at liberty to take copies of the revision application if not already supplied from the revisional authority on payment of usual charges. 7. Petition is disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)