1 913 wp.8783.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8783 OF 2010 Manikrao Madhukar Gaikhe and another. ... Petitioners Versus The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. Kishor Patil i/b Mr. P.N.Joshi for the Petitioners. Mr. S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 8. Mr. A.R.Kapadnis for Respondent No.4. Mr. Rameshwar N. Gite for Respondent Nos.3 (i), (v) and (x). ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 07 th September, 2011. P.C: 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.3(i), (v) and (x). I have heard the learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4. 2 The Respondent No.3 is a Society duly registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred 2 913 wp.8783.11 to as “the said Act”). An order was passed on 28 th July, 2008 by the Divisional Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies in exercise of powers under Section 70 of the said Act read with Rule 54 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules). By the said order, the Divisional Joint Registrar permitted the Respondent No.3 – Society to use a sum of Rs. 28,34,000/- out of the reserved fund for construction of a Mangal Karyalaya (Marriage Hall). Various conditions were imposed in the said order. One of the conditions was that the amount drawn from the reserved fund shall be again credited to the reserved fund by five equal installments. The second condition was that tenders should be invited by publishing public notice in leading newspapers in the District. 3 On 2 nd January, 2009, the Assistant Registrar of the Co- operative Society passed an order recording that the Society has committed a breach of the second condition regarding publishing public notices. The order records that the office of the Assistant 3 913 wp.8783.11 Registrar has appointed a team for examining the record. It was recorded that as the permission of Assistant Registrar was not obtained in terms of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 54 of the said Rules, cheques should not be issued to the contractor. The Society and the committee members of the Society filed a revision application under Section 154 of the said Act. By the impugned judgment and order, the revision application has been allowed. 4 At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners pointed out that the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 28 th July, 2008 by filing a revision application before the State Government and the said application is still pending. He submitted that there was no occasion to permit the Respondent No.3 – Society to construct a Mangal Karyalaya. He submitted that the said permission is contrary to the objects of the Respondent No.3 – Society. His submission is that the order of the Assistant Registrar of the Co- operative Societies notes that there is a violation of the second condition and therefore, a team has been constituted to verify the 4 913 wp.8783.11 record. He submitted that the Revisional Authority could not have interfered with the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 2 nd January, 2009. He has made submissions regarding legality and validity of the order dated 28 th July, 2008. 5 I have carefully considered the submissions. It must be noted here that as far as the order dated 28 th July, 2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is concerned, the Petitioners have filed a substantive revision application for challenging the said order. The said revision application is pending. Therefore, the validity of the said order cannot be gone into in this petition. 6 The Assistant Registrar in his communication dated 2 nd January, 2009 recorded that the Society has committed a breach of the second condition regarding publishing public notices in the leading newspapers in the district for inviting the tenders/ quotations. It must be noted here that on 23 rd November, 2010, a submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners was that the notices 5 913 wp.8783.11 were not published after 28 th July, 2008, but the same were published before the said date. The said submission has been recorded in the order of the Court. However, the copies of the notices have not been placed on record by the Petitioners. The effect of the order dated 2 nd September, 2009 passed by the Assistant Registrar is of staying the order passed by the superior officer i.e. the Divisional Joint Registrar on 28 th July, 2008. The Revisional Authority has observed that the Respondent No.3 – Society had published advertisements in the daily newspapers “Sakal” and “Gaonkari” and this aspect has not been considered by the Assistant Registrar. Apart from the question whether the Assistant Registrar had powers to pass the order which he had passed, on factual aspect, the Revisional Authority has found that the public notices were published published in the newspapers “Sakal” and “Gaonkari” in terms of the condition No.2 imposed by the order dated 28 th July, 2008. Failure to publish the public notice was the only ground on which the order was passed by the Assistant Registrar. Therefore, in the writ jurisdiction, it is not possible to find fault with the 6 913 wp.8783.11 impugned order dated 27 th September, 2010. It is however, made clear that no adjudication has been made as regards the legality and validity of the order dated 28 th July, 2008 and all the contentions of the parties in that behalf are expressly kept open. 7 Subject to what is observed above, the writ petition is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J ]