1 902 WP.370.11 n 373.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 370 OF 2011 M/s.Royal Cargo Carrier and another. ... Petitioners Versus Parivartan Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 373 OF 2011 M/s.Royal Bulk Carrier and others. ... Petitioners Versus Parivartan Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. Vinod Jadhav for the Petitioners. Mr. Kirit J. Hakani for Respondent No.1. Mrs. M.S.Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 21 st July, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 as well 2 902 WP.370.11 n 373.11 as the learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2 The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 9 th November, 2010 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar by which the order dated 26 th April, 2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration. 3 An application was made by the Respondent No.1 before the District Deputy Registrar for grant of recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The application made by the Respondent No.1 was rejected by the order dated 26 th April, 2007. 4 The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that without assigning any reason, the impugned order of remand has been passed. He submitted that the order impugned 3 902 WP.370.11 n 373.11 is cryptic which does not record any reasons. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment and order. He submitted that the order of remand is justified as the Deputy Registrar did not pass the order on merits. The learned AGP supported the impugned judgment and order. 5 I have carefully considered the submissions. The Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, while rejecting the application of the Respondent No.1, came to the conclusion that the issues involved in the application made by the Respondent No.1 cannot be decided by holding a summary inquiry and the decision on the issues will involve recording of elaborate evidence. Thus, in short, the view taken was that considering the factual controversy involved, the summary remedy under Section 101 of the said Act cannot be adopted and the first Respondent will have to take recourse to usual remedy. 4 902 WP.370.11 n 373.11 6 Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority shows that only the last paragraph before the operative part of the impugned order contains purported reasons. The relevant portion containing the reasons reads thus: “I have perused the Revisions Applications filed by the Applicant and the written submissions filed on behalf of Respondents. After going through the records and documents, I find that Respondent Deputy Registrar has passed impugned order mechanically. It would be in the interest of justice of the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration by Respondent Deputy Registrar to ascertain as to whom exactly is responsible for the loss caused to the Bank. Hence, I pass the following order.” 7 The first issue, which arose for consideration before the Revisional Authority was whether the finding of the Deputy Registrar that the issues involved cannot be determined by summary inquiry was correct. In a given case, order of remand would have been justified provided the Revisional Authority came to the conclusion that the aforesaid finding recorded by the Deputy Registrar is erroneous. Only after recording such a finding and conclusion that 5 902 WP.370.11 n 373.11 the application under Section 101 of the said Act deserves to be considered on merits that the Revisional Authority could have passed an order of remand. If there was enough undisputed material on record to decide the matter finally, the Revisional Authority could have even decided the revision application by recording findings on merits. 8 The only reason given by the Revisional Authority for passing the order of remand is that the Deputy Registrar has passed an order in a mechanical manner. In fact, the order of remand has been also passed in a mechanical manner. The order of remand could not have been passed without recording any cogent reasons for remand. Hence, the revision application will have to be heard afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court. 9 Hence, I pass the following order: 6 902 WP.370.11 n 373.11 i. The impugned judgment and order dated 9 th November, 2010 is quashed and set aside ; ii. The Revision Application No.575 of 2007 and the Revision Application No.576 of 2007 are restored to the file of the Divisional Joint Registrar ; iii. The Divisional Joint Registrar will decide the said revision applications afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment ; iv. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open ; v. The Writ Petitions are disposed of on above terms with no order as to costs ; and vi. The Revision Applications shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from today. [ A.S.OKA, J ]