:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7805 OF 2007 Sidhant Complex Co-operative Housing Society Ltd ...Petitioners Versus Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mumbai and Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Bharat Joshi Adv. for the petitioners. Y.R.Naik Adv. for respondent no.3. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 23rd January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This Writ petition challenges an order dated 7.9.2007 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, :2: :2: :2: Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.5.2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative societies, K-(E) Ward, Mumbai. That order was passed under Section 9(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Divisional Joint Registrar as an Appellate Authority has reversed that order and the result of the same is that the registration of the petitioner society is cancelled and an Official Assignee has been appointed. 2. Mr.Naik, learned counsel appearing for the Original Appellant before the Divisional Joint Registrar raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this Writ petition. He appears for respondent no.3 to the Writ petition and submits that the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in appeal is capable of being reversed in the revisional jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The said remedy is equally efficacious, inasmuch as, the issue of jurisdiction, as also, the order suffering from any errors apparent can be raised. Mr.Naik, on instructions makes a statement :3: :3: :3: that respondent no..3 would not raise any objection insofar as the limitation is concerned. 3. In the light of this, Mr.Joshi was called upon to address the court as to whether the Revision Application is not an alternate and equally efficacious remedy. Mr.Joshi, was unable to demonstrate that the Revision Application would not be maintainable in this case. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed off on the ground of an alternate and equally efficacious remedy being available to the petitioner under Section 154 of the M.C.S.Act. If the Revision Application is filed within a period of three weeks from today, the State Government to dispose off the same on merits and in accordance with law after hearing both sides. If the Revision Application is filed within this period the plea of limitation will not be allowed to be raised and the Revision Application must be decided on merits. If t he Revision Application is not filed within this period, then, it would be open for the petitioners to satisfy the Revisional Authority with regard sufficient cause being made out for condoning the delay. Either way, Writ Petition is not :4: :4: :4: the remedy. Petition dismissed with liberty as above. 4. However, for a period of four weeks from today, the Official Assignee not to take charge of the affairs of the petitioner society. All contentions on merits of both sides are kept open. sd/- *******