1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4407 OF 2009 (PRAGATI MAGAS VARGIYA NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA ..VS.. CHATUR SITARAM RAIPURE & OTH.) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4408 OF 2009 (PRAGATI MAGAS VARGIYA NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA ..VS.. GAUTAM ADKUJI TODE & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.K.Tambde, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri P.D.Meghe, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri V.A.Thakare, A.G.P. for Respondents No.3 & 4. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 01, 2010. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The contentions of the petitioner are recorded by me in order dated 11th January, 2010 while calling for record. 3. Today in presence of respective learned Advocates records are perused. Order-sheet dated 14.08.2008 does not grant any next date to the parties present there. It appears that as per order-sheet recorded matter was closed on 14.08.2008 for decision. Then words “for decision” are scored off and the matter was taken up on 16.08.2008 and thereafter on 21.08.2008. The order impugned in appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar was then passed on 30th August, 2008. 2 4. In this situation, the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1 was aware of the date and did not remain present cannot be accepted. Other contention is, Advocate for respondent No.1 stated that the appellant learnt about the orders dated 30.08.2008 on 15.11.2008. However, in their appeal memo respondent No.1 specifically stated that the order has been communicated to him on 28.11.2008. Appeal is required to be filed within sixty days of the communication. 5. I am satisfied that the appeal, as filed on 21.01.2009, is within limitation. Though Advocate Shri Tambde wanted to address the Court further I find that the matter pertains to holding of enquiry under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and hence, it needs to be decided expeditiously. The Divisional Joint Registrar has remanded the matter back for holding further enquiry. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter exercising writ jurisdiction. However, it is made clear that the enquiry under Section 88, as directed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, should be decided as early as possible. 6. With this observation the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE RR..