(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 119 OF 1992 Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Through the Superintending Engineer, M.S.E.B. Circle, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad. .. Respondent. 2. The Liquidator, M/s. Soegaon Taluka Sugarcane Product Processing, through the Chairman, B.N. Patil, Age : Major, Occupation : Business, Taluka Sugarcane Product Processing Cooperative Society, R/o. Soegaon, Taluka : Soegaon, .. Petition dismissed District : Aurangabad. as against respondent nos.2 and 3, vide 3. M/s. Soegaon Taluka Sugarcane Additional Registrar's Product Processing Cooperative order dated 5-7-93. Society, through the Chairman, B.N. Patil, Age : Major, Occupation : Business, R/o. Soegaon, Taluka : Soegaon, District : Aurangabad. ....................... (2) Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Petition dismissed as against respondent nos.2 and 3 vide Additional Registrar's order dated 5-7-1993. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 31ST MARCH 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, for the petitioner / original plaintiff, and learned AGP Mr. S.K. Tambe, for respondent no.1 / State. 2. Learned AGP Mr. Tambe points out that in petition, refusal of permission to continue to prosecute Civil Suit under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, has been challenged. The consumers namely, respondent nos.2 and 3, cannot be reached now as the petition is already dismissed against them way back in 1993. (3) 3. Adv. Mr. Dhanajay Deshpande, for the petitioner, accepts this but according to him, grievance is only against respondent no.1 who has refused to grant permission. He contends that though respondent no.1 proceeds to accept liability and also promises payment of pari passu amount after it is made available, that admission may not be binding upon the consumers who were already respondent nos.2 and 3. 4. After hearing respective Counsel, I find that respondent nos.2 and 3 were not necessary parties to this petition. They were consumers to whom electricity has been supplied by the petitioner and suit is for recovery of arrears of electricity charges. As the respondent no.3 / Society, in the meanwhile, went in liquidation, as per provisions of Section 107 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, petitioner was constrained to approach respondent no.1 seeking leave to prosecute that Civil Suit further. 5. Respondent no.1 was, therefore, only expected to note the bona fides of the claim and then to decide whether permission to prosecute suit further should be granted or not. The impugned order does not reveal that application of mind. On the contrary, the District Deputy Registrar has communicated to the petitioner, that permission of State Government to sell (4) property of respondent no.3's establishment has been sought and after receipt of that permission, the property would be auctioned and out of sale proceeds so received, claim of the petitioner will be settled. 6. When there is dispute about claim, that dispute is required to be settled. The establishment of sugar factory has gone in liquidation in 1992 and the suit filed by the petitioner is for recovery of energy charges totaling to Rs. 1,14,623.20 Paise on the basis of a bill then sent in August 1980. 7. It is, therefore, obvious that dispute between establishment and the petitioner needed settlement or then the liquidator appointed by respondent no.1 should have accepted claim of the petitioner. As that has not been done, the impugned order is unsustainable and will have to be set aside. 8. At this stage, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande points out that because of subsequent changes, the establishment of petitioner has undergone some divisions. Needless, to mention that leave to prosecute suit survives to the benefit of the successor Company of the present petitioner. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. (5) (i) The impugned order dated 18-1-1992, Exhibit "A" with the petition, passed by respondent no.1 / District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad, is quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner is granted necessary permission to prosecute Special Civil Suit No. 98/1980, pending on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad, as required by Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. (iii) If the suit is decreed, the claim in decree shall be submitted by them to liquidator / his representative and shall be considered for pari passu payment in accordance with law. (iv) Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp119