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

2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 28th November, 2000 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, Mumbai Division, Mumbai, in Application No. 78 of 2000, which was filed by the petitioner under section 21-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as "the said Act"), requesting for de-registration of the respondent No. 1 society. By the impugned order, the said application was dismissed by the concerned authority.

3. The challenged to the impugned order is mainly on the three grounds. Firstly, that in terms of the provisions of law contained in section 6 of the said Act relating to the requirement of the minimum number of 10 members for the purpose of registration of a society has not been satisfied in the case in hand besides there was misrepresentation in respect of the requirement of 10 members by showing more than one member from the same family as being independent and separate persons for the purpose of satisfaction of the requirement of minimum number of 10 members. Secondly, the authority, while granting registration and refusing de-registration of a society, misconstrued the circulars dated 1st March, 1980 and 10th March, 1995, which were issued by the Government in exercise of powers under section 7 of the said Act. The authority also failed to consider as to whether the conditions stipulated under the said circulars were satisfied or not in the case in hand so as to grant registration to a co-operative society with less than 10 members. Thirdly, it is sought to be contended that it was obligatory on the part of the registering authority to inquire into the facts relating to the compliance of requirements of law by the applicant in relation to the minimum number of required members for formation and registration of a co-operative society as well as other related matters in relation to the registration of a co-operative society, and, yet, the authority without undertaking any such exercise and without application of mind, not only granted registration but even refused to consider the application for de-registration. In short, the registration of the respondent No. 1, as the co-operative society under the said Act, as well as rejection of the appeal filed under section 21-A of the said Act by the concerned authority, has been done in contravention of the provisions of law, which warrants interference in writ jurisdiction.

4. Though the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 initially sought to justify the impugned order and also to contend failure on the part of the petitioner to exhaust alternative remedy, drawing attention to the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of (Prabhu Shriram Sahakari Dudh Vyawasaik Sanstha Maryadit, Ahmenagar v. State of Maharashtra others)1, reported in 1999(3) Bom.C.R. (A.B.)20, but having realised the infirmities in the impugned order, fairly submitted that, while setting aside the impugned order, the matter may be remanded to the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies at Mumbai, to reconsider the issue relating to the registration of the respondent No. 1 as the co-operative society under the said Act, after hearing the parties and after taking into consideration all the materials which are placed on record by the parties in the case in hand as well as in the case before the authority during the course of hearing. The contention in relation to the remand of the matter was also supported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, upon instructions from Shri Rajesh Kulkarni, Deputy Registrar, K-Ward (East). He submitted that the impugned order does not disclose proper application of mind to the matter in issue by the concerned authority while deciding the matter. Considering the submission for remand having been made on behalf of the State Government itself and the concerned authorit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document