- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4386 OF 2006 Bhagwan R. Patil Petitioner Vs. The Assist. Registrar, . Respondent Co-Op. Societies. Mr. Amit Borkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. D. Dalvi, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for the respondent No.4. CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 PC . This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the State Govt. by which Revision Application 389 of 2005 has been dismissed. That Revision Application was directed against the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kolhapur division Kolhapur dated 15th June 2005. 2. The issue before this Court is as to whether the petitioner is claiming to be the Chief Promoter of one Harhar Mahadeo Vividh Karyakari - 2 - Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, has satisfied the concerned authorities that a third society would be viable in the area of operation of the existing society namely respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It appears that the authorities took a view that such societies would not be viable. The reliance was placed upon some Govt. policy/circular. 3. The proposal was forwarded by the petitioner itself long back in the year 2004, it being processed after a passage of time culminating in the impugned order, and was not finalised until 2008, in such circumstances, I expressed a view to the learned counsel appearing for both sides that the petitioner Chief Promoter can still approach the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karvir Taluka, District Kolhapur and satisfy him as to whether the proposals submitted to him could be said to be viable and acceptable. While placing reliance upon the material already produced on record, it would be open for the petitioner to rely upon the communications from the existing Society and urge that the same amounts to consent for the third Society. Equally, it would be open for the existing Society to oppose the proposal on all grounds including urging that no consent was ever - 3 - given by their General Body. Therefore, any letters cannot be relied upon. 4. It has already been settled that the decision to register a society or not must be taken by the Registrar or his delegate and no Govt. directive or command can bind him. Therefore, when liberty is being granted to the petitioner to approach the Assistant Registrar, it is needless to clarify that the Assistant Registrar will scrutinize the proposal and convey the decision to the parties without in any manner being influenced by any directions from the Minister or other Authorities. However, while scrutinising the proposal, the Assistant Registrar must follow the mandate of section 4 and 6 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Pleas raised in the petition by both sides are kept open. Parties to approach the Assistant Registrar on 10th March 2008 and Assistant Registrar to convey his decision after hearing the parties latest by 15th of April 2008. Petition is disposed of in these terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- [ S.C. DHARMADHIKARI J.]