1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2278 OF 2010 (Ashok U. Belani vs. Samata Sahakari Bank Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 18, 2010. Heard Shri Jagdale, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 and 5 and Shri Tambde, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. This Court has on 06.05.2010 issued notice for final disposal and has permitted Respondent No. 2 to pass final orders but its implementation has been stayed. With the result, Respondent No. 2 has not proceeded further. The contention of Shri Jagdale, learned counsel is, the petitioner never stood guarantor for Respondent No. 3 – Neeta. Neeta has accepted that position and a finding of fact to that effect is recorded by Respondent No. 2 in his order dated 24.08.2007. Attention is invited to reply filed by State Government in Criminal Writ Petition No. 555 of 2009 before this Court where Government has stated that after enquiry it found that present petitioner never stood as guarantor to a loan transaction between Neeta and Respondent No.1/ 2 Respondent No. 6 – Cooperative Bank. Shri Jagdale, learned counsel states that in view of these findings, the remand as ordered by Respondent No. 5 is uncalled for and arbitrary. Shri Tambde, learned counsel supports the case of the petitioner by alleging that Respondent No. 4 is also not a guarantor for said loan obtained by Neeta. Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 and 5 has urged that the matter has been remanded only to hold proper enquiry and therefore, this Court should not interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. According to him, it is apparent that Respondent No. 3 has obtained loan and her status or purpose for which loan was obtained need to be ascertained. The perusal of impugned order passed by Respondent No. 5 reveals that findings of fact recorded by Respondent No. 2 are not even mentioned therein. The stand of government in Criminal Writ Petition No. 555 of 2009 is also not discussed. The need for remand could have been demonstrated after considering these findings. As the impugned order does not show any such application of mind, I find that the same is unsustainable. The remand could not have been ordered by ignoring the findings already recorded. Nobody has appeared either for Respondent No. 1 or for Respondent No. 3 or then for Respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 6 is presently the Liquidator placed in charge of Respondent No. 1 – Bank. Hence, I 3 find it proper to remand the matter to Respondent No. 5 to apply his mind afresh to the facts and to decide it appropriately. The impugned order dated 13.04.2010 is quashed and set aside for said purpose. Revision Application No. 515 of 2008 is restored back to the file of Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur, for taking fresh decision. The parties are directed to appear before that authority on 7th December 2010. The authority shall attempt to decide the revision finally on merits as early as possible and in any case by 31st March 2011. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.