acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 961 OF 2007 Dr. Arun Gajanan Deshmukh …Petitioner Vs. Amrut Kunj Co.Op.Hsg.Scy. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents. ---- Mr. Vinay P. Sonpal, for the Petitioner. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Sr.Counsel i/b Niranjan Mundargi, for Respondent Co-Op.Society. Mr. Y.S. Shinde, APP for the State. ---- CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 7TH JULY, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for the first Respondent-Co-op.Society and learned APP for the State. The first respondent filed a dispute before the Cooperative Court. The said dispute was dismissed by the said court. An appeal was preferred by the first respondent. The appeal has been dismissed. The order of the co-operative court has attained finality. 2. An application was made by the Petitioner who was 2nd disputant in the dispute filed by the first respondent-society for initiating action against the witnesses examined by the first respondent-society for the offences under Section-191 and 193 and 120 of Indian Penal Code. On : 2 : the said application a show cause notice was issued by the learned Judge of Co-operative Court. The said application was dismissed and an appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Co-operative Appellate Court. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has invited my attention to the paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application made by the Petitioner. He submitted that the Co-operative Court committed an error by not considering the merits of the application on the ground that the main dispute and appeal arising therefrom have been disposed of. He submitted that none of the grounds pleaded by the Petitioner in the Appeal have been considered by the Appellate Court. He has placed reliance on a Judgment of Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in 1974 CRI. L.J. 23. Lastly he submitted that the order of the Co-operative Appellate Court of imposing of costs of Rs.15000/- is most unjust. 3. I have considered the submissions. In the application on which impugned order is passed, it is contended that a witness examined by the first respondent-society denied that the society had effected transfer in relation to the nine transferees. It is contended that the record of society shows that at least in three cases, the society had already effected transfer of shops. This is the ground on which an action was sought by the Petitioner. 4. As it appears from the averments made in this Petition that now entire dispute between the Petitioner and the first respondent as regards transfer of membership has come to an end. It is true that only on this : 3 : ground the application made by the Petitioner could not have been disposed of. It appears from the application on which impugned order is passed that the same was filed during the pendancy of appeal before the co-operative appellate court against order dismissing the dispute. After filing of the said application, the appeal has been dismissed on merits and thereafter there is no subsisting dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent-society. The Petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 227 of Constitution of India. It is well settled that the it is not necessary to interfere with every illegal order in writ jurisdiction. In the present case, the dispute filed by the first respondent was of the year 1992 and as stated earlier, the said dispute has come to an end after the order of the Appellate Court. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, it must be observed that there was no reason for the Appellate Court to impose exorbitant costs of Rs.15000/-. The said order is required to be set aside. Hence, I passed the following Order: 5. The impugned judgment and order as far as order of dismissal of Misc.Appl.No.14 of 2002 stands confirmed. However, the order of the Co-operative Appellate Court directing the Petitioner to pay the costs of Rs.15000/- is quashed and set aside. JUDGE