1 dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6808 OF 2002 Shri Dutt Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Chinchwad, Kolhapur. Petitioner vs. 1. Shri Sanjay Shankar Kedge & others. Respondents Mr.V.S.Tadake for Mr.M.L.Patil for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for respondents 3 and 4. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 6th August, 2008 P.C. By the order dated 29.11.2002 this Court issued notice before admission to the respondents with intimation that the petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Though respondents 1 and 2 are served, none appears on their behalf. 2. Heard Mr.Tadake, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.M.Patne, the learned AGP for respondents 3 and 4. 3. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. 4. This writ petition takes exception to the judgement 2 and order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Kolhapur on 30.4.2002 allowing the Revision Application filed by respondent no.1 which in turn challenge the order dated 27.3.2002 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kolhapur. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that respondents 1 and 2 filed Revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 without complying with the provisions of sub-section (2A) of the said Section and, therefore, Revisional Authority could not have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the Revision Application. 6. Mr.Patne, the learned AGP for respondents 3 and 4, submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 have not deposited 50% of the amount due and payable as contemplated under Section 154(2A) of the Cooperative Societies Act. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, I have no hesitation to hold that the Revisional Authority has completely exceeded its jurisdiction in proceeding to decide the revision application on merits, particularly when respondents 1 and 2 had not complied with the mandate of Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra 3 Cooperative Societies Act, by which they are required to deposit 50% of the amount due and payable to the society as per the recovery certificate. If that be so, the Revisional Authority could not have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the revision application, much less to decide the matter on merits. On this count alone, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. In the facts and circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: ORDER ORDER ORDER (i) The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]