1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 43/2008 (Jai Bhawani Matsyavyawasay Sahakari Sanstha VERSUS The Hon'ble Minister for State & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Ms. Yerlekar h/f Shri V.M. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Wandile, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1 to 3. Shri Ambilwade, counsel for the R-4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 17, 2008. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Fisheries) on 22.05.2001 as also the order passed by the Minister of State Department of Fisheries, on 31.07.2007 in a revision filed by the petitioner. Both, the petitioner and the respondent no.4 societies are registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The respondent no.4 society was doing the business of fishing and had the area of operation at Achalpur City. The petitioner society was having the area 2 of operation at Dhamangaon (Gadhi), Jalalpura 1 and 2, Pimpalkhuta, Nindhari, Belapur, Wazar, Mohphata and Deogaon. The respondent no.4 society had submitted an application for amendment of its bye-laws as the society wanted to include Chandrabhaga Tank in its area of operation. By the impugned order dated 22.05.2001, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, allowed the application for amendment. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on 22.05.2001 which was rejected and the order dated 22.05.2001 was confirmed. A revision was preferred against the order passed by the Assistant Registrar as well as the Divisional Deputy Registrar before the Minister for State Fisheries Department. The revision was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 31.07.2007. The orders dated 22.05.2001 and 31.07.2007 are challenged in the instant petition. 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. It appears from the perusal of the orders that the amendment of bye-laws of the respondent no.4 society was approved as the number of the members of the respondent no.4 society was large. The area of Chandrabhaga Tank was more than 174 Hectare. According to the bye-laws, the area of operation for one society is to be to the extent of 60 Hectares. In view of the Government norms, since the Chandrabhaga Tank had an area of more than 174 Hectare, the respondent no.4 society was permitted to amend the bye-laws. Even otherwise, the authorities held that the petitioner society had been awarded the contract of Chandrabhaga Tank for a period of five years i.e. from 2005 to 2001 and, therefore, the Tank was in possession of the petitioner society. Since two societies could carry out the fishing operations in the tank which was situated in more 4 than 174 Hectares, according to the authorities, two societies could have carried out the fishing operations in the Chandrabhaga Tank. There were only 57 members in the petitioner society, whereas, there was 326 members in the respondent no.4 society and considering the number of members, the orders were passed with a view to solve the unemployment problem. No fault can be found with the orders passed by the respondent nos.1 and 3. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE