ash 1 wp-3165.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3165 OF 2011 Secretary/President, Vikhroli Janta Co-op Housing Society Ltd. .. Petitioner Vs K.Y. Hire & Others. .. Respondents -- Shri G.N. Salunke for the Petitioner. Shri M.R. Phal for Respondent No.1. Ms Aparna Vhatkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 1ST AUGUST, 2011 P.C. . Heard leaned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The 1st Respondent is the contesting Respondent. On 21st July, 2011, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent and the learned AGP for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, the Petition was fixed today for final hearing. Today, none appears for the Respondent No.1. 2. According to the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent is a member of the Petitioner Society. On an application made by the Petitioner, the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies granted recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies ash 2 wp-3165.11 Act, 1960 against the 1st Respondent in the sum of Rs.40,383/-. However, the prayer for grant of interest was denied. Being aggrieved by that part of the order, a Revision Application under Section 154 of the said Act was preferred before the Divisional Joint Registrar of the co-operative Societies. By the impugned order, the Revision Application has been dismissed. 3. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, I find that the impugned order is very cryptic and no reasons have been assigned for dismissing the Revision Application. The relevant reasons, if any, are found in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the impugned order. The impugned order runs only into one page. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the impugned order read thus:- “3. The Appellant argued to consider this interest as that order was under section 91 & this matter is under section 101. But their argument is wrong. The authority cannot act contrary to order of Hon. Co-operative Court. 4. So ab-initio this Revision Application is not tenable. I am satisfied, that this Revision should be dismissed. Hence I pass the following order. ORDER 1. The Revision Application is dismissed. 2. There is no order as to costs.” 4. It is not necessary to record detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion that the Revision Authority has not done its duty. The Revision Application could not have been decided by passing such a ash 3 wp-3165.11 cryptic order. 5. Only on the aforesaid grounds, the impugned order deserves to to quashed and set aside. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER : (a) The impugned order dated 11th November, 2010 is quashed and set aside. (b) The Revision Application No.528 of 2006 is restored to the file of the Divisional Joint Registrar. (c) The Divisional Joint Registrar shall decide the Revision application afresh in light of the observations made in this order. (d) All contentions of the parties on merits of the Revision Application are kept open. (e) The Revision Application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible. ash 4 wp-3165.11 (f) The Petition is allowed on above terms. (g) The parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. ( A.S. OKA, J )