(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3128 OF 2011 Zilla Parishad Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Sengaon, Taluka : Sengaon, District : Hingoli, Through its Chairman, Vitthal s/o. Dinkarrao Deshmukh, .. Petitioner / Age : 42 years, Original Appellant / Occupation : Chairman Applicant. versus 1. The Sengaon Taluka Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Sengaon, Taluka : Sengaon, District : Hingoli, through its Chief Promoter, Deepak s/o. Bhanudas Aru, R/o. Sengaon, Taluka : Sengaon, District : Hingoli. 2. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sengaon, Taluka : Sengaon, District : Hingoli. 3. Hon'ble Minister of State for Revenue, Rehabilitation and Relief Work, Earthquake Rehabilitation, Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deelip Patil Bankar, Advocate, for respondent no.1 / caveator. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.2 and 3. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 3RD MAY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, for the petitioner; Adv. Mr. Deelip Patil Bankar, for respondent no.1 / caveator, and learned AGP Mr. S.K. Tambe, for respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent. 3. Short contention of Adv. Mr. Chincholkar is, Divisional Joint Registrar had remanded matter to respondent no. 2 / Assistant Registrar for fresh hearing and adjudication. This order of remand was questioned by respondent no.1 / Society in revision before respondent no.3. In revision, without serving any notice upon petitioner, order to its prejudice has been passed. (3) 4. Adv. Mr. Chincholkar states that order of remand has been set aside and the order of Assistant Registrar granting registration to respondent no.1 / Society has been made absolute. According to him, there is failure to exercise jurisdiction. 5. Adv. Mr. Deelip Bankar Patil, for respondent no.1, as also, learned AGP Mr. S.K. Tambe, for respondent nos.2 and 3, have supported the impugned order. They have relied upon finding in the order of respondent no.3, that notices were duly served. Attention is invited to communication dated 22-2-2011, inviting petitioner for hearing at Mumbai and its refusal by him. Apart from this, Adv. Mr. Bankar Patil also wants to invite attention of this court, to conduct of the petitioner to show that, in fact, petitioner has given no objection for registration of respondent no.1 / Society. 6. Adv. Mr. Chincholkar, for the petitioner, disputes this position. 7. It is not necessary for this court to go into merits of the controversy. Whether petitioner has or has not given its no objection can be looked into by respondent no.3. Perusal of communication dated 22-2-2011 issued by the office of (4) respondent no.2 reveals that it is in pursuance to the communication dated 21-2-2011 sent by the office of Divisional Joint Registrar. The Assistant Registrar has informed the petitioner of hearing scheduled at 2.30 p.m. at Mumbai on 23-2-2011. The endorsement in the margin shows refusal by the petitioner. The refusal appears to have taken place at 3.30 p.m. on 22-2-2011. Some witnesses have also attested that refusal. 8. It is, therefore, obvious that notice of hearing scheduled on 23-2-2011 was issued on or after 21-2-2011 and in any case, the intimation thereof was prepared on 22-2-2011 and it was to be served on the petitioner. The endorsement shows refusal of that intimation barely 24 hours prior to scheduled time of hearing. The notice, therefore, cannot be presumed to be reasonable notice to enable the petitioner to remain present for hearing before respondent no.3 along with or without Advocate. In view of this, I do not find it necessary to go into other details. 9. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 25-2-2011, passed by respondent no.3 / Hon. Minister of State for Revenue Rehabilitation and Relief Work, Earthquake Rehabilitation, Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles, in Revision Application No. 197/2011, is quashed (5) and set aside. The proceedings in Revision Application No. 197/2011 are restored back to the file of respondent no.3 for giving fresh opportunity of hearing to the parties and fresh decision in accordance with law. (ii) Parties are directed to appear before respondent no.3 on 31st May 2011 and respondent no.3 shall attempt to decide the revision as early as possible and in any case, by 31st July 2011. (iii) Respondent no.1 / Society is presently functioning. The said functioning will not be affected and shall continue till 31st July 2011 or till the revision is decided by respondent no.3 and orders to the contrary are passed either by respondent no.3 or any other authority. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. 11. Authenticated copy of this judgment, duly signed by Court Shirastedar, be supplied to learned AGP, as requested by him. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3128