D.K.DESHMUKH, J.

1. The questions of law that have been referred by the learned single Judge in these two petitions relates to the provisions of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co.operative Societies Act therefore, they can be conveniently answered by a common judgment.

2. The questions of law referred in Writ Petition No. 6403 of 2010 are

1. Whether Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1950 gives concurrent jurisdiction to the Registrar and the State Government to exercise power?

2. Whether the power of revision under Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Act can only be exercised once and cannot be exercised twice over?

3. The questions of law referred in Writ Petition No. 7293 of 2010 are,

1. Whether the remedy under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co.operative Societies Act, 1960 is available to an aggrieved party as a matter of right?

2. Whether the remedy available under Section 154 of the said Act can be said to be efficacious and adequate remedy?

3. The questions of law referred in Writ Petition No. 6403 of 2010 are hereinafter referred to as the First question and the questions of law referred in Writ Petition No.7293 of 2010 are hereinafter referred to as the Second question.

4. So far as the first question is concerned, it arose in following factual background. The Co.operative Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Co.operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity) applied to the Deputy Registrar for grant of recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Act. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6403 of 2010 against whom that recovery certificate was sought contested that application. The Deputy Registrar rejected that application. A revision application under Section 154 of the Act was preferred by the Society before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar allowed that revision and the order passed by the Deputy Registrar was set aside. The Petitioner challenged that order by filing the revision under section 154 before the State Government. The State Government by order dated 19th July, 2010 held that the revision against the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar before the State Government under the provisions of Section 154 was not maintainable. Writ Petition No.6403 of 2010 challenges the order of the State Government holding that the revision under Section 154 against the order passed under that very provision by the Divisional Joint Registrar is not maintainable. It appears that when the matter came before the learned single Judge, various judgments of the learned single Judges of this court as also the Division Bench were referred to by both the sides, which showed that conflicting views have been taken by different single Judges on this question. The following observations from the judgment of the learned single Judge are relevant.

(i) The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that the revision application made before the State Government was maintainable as it was the first revision application filed by the Petitioners. He pointed out that the 1st Respondent-Society had filed the first revision application before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners relied upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kunbi Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Shakti Paper Company & Others, (2009(1) Mh.L.J. 696 ). He submitted that this Court after considering a decision of the Apex Court came to a conclusion that in such a case the second revision application was maintainable. He invited attention of the Court to what is observed in Paragraph 12 of the said decision. He submitted that on plain reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Act, successive revision applications are provided before the Registrar and the State Government. He submitted that if a revision application is allowed by the R