-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3408 OF 1994 Shri Bhairavnath Vividh Karyakari Sahakari (Vikas) Seva Society Ltd Petitioner. Vs 1. Shri Sahebrao Nagoji Phatak, Chief Promoter, proposed Nagraj Vividh Karyakari .... & ors .. Respondents. Mr S.Y.Jahagirdar, for the petitioner. Mr K.V.Saste, for Respondent no.1. Mr P.P.Kukade, AGP for Respondent Nos 2 to 4. CORAM : CORAM : CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. D.B.BHOSALE,J. D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 01.12.2005 DATE : 01.12.2005 DATE : 01.12.2005 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 20.6.1994 passed by the respondent no.4, by which a challenge by the petitioner-society to the registration of the respondent no.1-society was ultimately rejected and its registration dated 12.1.1993 was maintained. 3. This Court, while admitting the writ petition did not pass the interim order. Consequently, respondent no.1-society was allowed to operate and has been operating since 1993. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the revisional -2- authority erred in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below and entering into an issue of the quantum of membership. The registration was initially granted by the Assistant Registrar, which was set aside in appeal, and thereafter in revision carried by the respondent-society the revisional authority, by its judgment and order dated 21.10.1993, allowed the revision. There is no dispute that since the date of registration, respondent-society has been operating as a registered society. In my opinion, the revisional authority has rightly interfered with the order passed by the appellate authority. Keeping in view that the respondent-society came to be registered in 1993 and considering that it has been operating since then, I find absolutely no reason to interfere with the order impugned in the instant writ petition in extremely limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed as such. (D.B.Bhosale,J.)