:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1535 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1535 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1535 OF 2008 Abubakar Umar Memon ..Petitioner versus Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, G/North Ward, Mumbai & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. M. Ghorwadkar with Mr. P. J. Ramchandani for the Petitioner. Mr. R. R. Bhosale, AGP for the Respondent No. 3 - State. Mr. S. K. Shinde for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 22ND JULY, 2008. DATE : 22ND JULY, 2008. DATE : 22ND JULY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . By this petition the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 26.5.2008, by which the Minister of Co-operation has set aside the Order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, Mumbai, and the matter has been remanded back to the Divisional Joint Registrar for re-hearing. 2. The dispute between the parties is about the :2: registration of the respondent No.4 society. According to the petitioner who claims to be the landlady, her consent was not obtained before the registration was granted to the respondent No.4 society by the Deputy Registrar and was not heard. The petitioner therefore preferred an Appeal under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Appellate Authority apparently decided the matter without hearing the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 therefore preferred a Revision, before the Minister for Co-operation. The Revisional Authority has set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and has remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision. Apparently, the Revisional Authority has mainly relied on the fact that the respondent was not heard by the Appellate Authority. In principle there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Revisional Authority since it cannot be denied that both parties to the lis should be heard. However, from the circumstances of the case, it is clear that the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not heard before the original order of registration of the respondent No.4 society was passed. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the :3: respondents. 3. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to direct that instead of there being a remand to the Divisional Joint Registrar, who is an Appellate Authority, there should be a remand to the original Authority i.e. the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, who shall decide the matter afresh after hearing both the sides, within eight weeks from today. All contentions of both the sides shall be open for decision. In the meanwhile the parties shall maintain status quo as regards the property in question. Petition disposed of accordingly. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)