The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Government cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act against an order passed by the Registrar in the same section. Additionally, the withdrawal of a Writ Petition without leave amounts to abandonment of the claim and precludes the party from agitating the same in revisional jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

3. The petitioner challenges the order dated 4-9-2000 passed by the Minister for State (Co-operation) in exercise of powers stated to have been exercised under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act") on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction inasmuch as, the revisional powers under section 154 of the said Act are sought to be exercised against the order of the revisional authority itself. Secondly, that the respondent having withdrawn the Writ Petition No. 5477 of 1999 without any leave or liberty to pursue any other remedy, had abandoned his claim and, therefore, was not entitled to agitate the same in revisional jurisdiction.

4. The facts in brief, relevant for the decision are that, the petitioner herein filed Revision Application No. 57/1998 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik under section 154 of the said Act against the notice dated 27th March, 1998 issued by the respondent No. 4 under section 73(3) of the said Act. By the said notice, the respondent No. 4 had declared 24 persons to have been elected as the managing committee of the Jalgaon Jillha Maratha Vidya Prasarak Co-op. Samaj Ltd., Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. According to the petitioner, the election was not proper and correct as the election process was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of law and proper procedure was not followed. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik allowed the said revision application by its order dated 31st December, 1998 and set aside the said notice and the declaration dated 27-3-1998. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 2 and some others filed Writ Petition No. 5477 of 1999 but, the same was subsequently, withdrawn on 22nd November, 1999. Thereafter, in August, 2000 the respondent No. 2 preferred revision application against the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar dated 31-12-1999 before the State Government along with an application for condonation of delay. The same was heard by the Minister for the State (Co-operation) and by an ex parte order, dated 5-1-2000, condoned the delay and stayed the order dated 31-12-1998 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik. Subsequently, the said order of stay was vacated by the Minister on 11-4-2000. Thereupon, the respondent No. 2 and others filed an application for restoration of the order of stay dated 5-1-2000. The said application was rejected on 10-5-2000. Meanwhile, the writ petition bearing No. 2169/2000 was filed by the petitioner herein against the ex parte stay order dated 5-1-2000. Yet another Writ Petition No. 2139/2000 was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against the order vacating the interim stay dated 11-4-2000 as well as rejecting the restoration of stay dated 10-5-2000. By common order dated 19-6-2000, in both the above petitions, this Court directed the Minister to decide the application for condonation of delay prior to considering the main petition within a period of specified days and in case of condonation of delay, thereafter to dispose of the revision petition on merits after hearing the parties within the specified time. Thereafter, delay in filing revision application before the Minister was condoned by the Minister by its order dated 5-7-2000 and after hearing the parties, the impugned order was passed on 4-9-2000.

5. Relying upon three decisions namely, in the matter of (Bhupendra Villa Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. and another v. Chandrakant G. Shah and others)1, reported in 2000(3) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)199 , (Ramesh T. Gopalani v. Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Kalyan and another)2, reported in 2000(3) Bom.C.R. 474 and (Syed Afzal Hussain Hussaini v. Hon'ble Minister, Revenue and Forest Department, Bombay and others)3, reported in 2000(1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document