The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revisionary jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act can only be invoked against a 'decision' or an 'order', and the notice of hearing for confirmation of sale did not fall within these categories.

1. At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks deletion of the Respondent No.4 as in the context of the challenge raised in the above Petition the said Respondent is a formal party. The Respondent No.4 is accordingly allowed to be deleted at the risk of the Petitioner.

2. Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

3. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur, by which order, the Revision Application filed by the Respondent No.1 came to be allowed and resultantly, notice of hearing dated 23.01.2014 came to be set aside.

4. The factual matrix involved in the above Petition in brief can be stated thus :The Respondent No.4 who has now been deleted i.e. Sou. Pooja Annaso Jadhav was the borrower of the Respondent No.3 i.e. Shahu Corner Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit. The Respondent No.1 was guarantor to the loan taken by the Respondent No. 4. On default being committed by the Respondent No.4 proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (for short “the said Act”) came to be initiated by the Respondent No.3. The said proceedings culminated in the certificate being issued on 01.06.2010 for an amount of Rs.11,09,258/with interest at 16% per annum from 01.10.2005. In view of the fact that the Respondent No.4 did not pay the amount, the property of the Respondent No.1 who was the guarantor was put to auction. The said auction was conducted on 26.12.2012 and the bid of the Petitioner for Rs.36,50,000/being the highest was accepted. It seems that in terms of the rules, the Petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.5,47,500/which is 15% of the amount with the Special Recovery Officer i.e. Respondent No.3. Thereafter it seems that the balance 85% amount i.e. Rs.31,02,500/ was paid by the Petitioner on 07.01.2013. The Respondent No.3 put up a proposal for confirmation of sale to the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kolhapur on 26.02.2013. The District Deputy Registrar by his letter dated 21.12.2013 refused to confirm the sale for the reasons mentioned in the said letter. The said reasons were interalia to the effect that the names of the witnesses to the auction were not mentioned with the auction purchaser and the auction purchaser has not paid 15% of the auction price within the stipulated time. The said letter of the District Deputy Registrar was replied to on behalf of the Respondent No.3 by his letter dated 06.01.2014. The Special Recovery Officer in the reply has mentioned the names of the witnesses who were present at the time of auction as also mentioned that the Petitioner herein has paid an amount of Rs.15% in terms of the rule and had also forwarded a xerox copy of the cheque which was issued by the Petitioner for the said amount. It seems that pursuant to the said reply a notice of hearing was fixed on 23.01.2014 as regards the confirmation of sale in favour of the Petitioner. It is the said notice which was taken exception to by the Respondent No.1, who as indicated above was the guarantor by filing a Revision Application before the Divisional Joint Registrar which was Revision Application No.51 of 2014.

5. The said Revision Application was allowed by the Divisional Joint Registrar by the impugned order and the notice of hearing for confirmation of sale was set aside on the ground that once the proposal for confirmation of sale has been rejected by the District Deputy Registrar he has no authority to review his own order. As indicated above, it is the said order dated 20.01.2015 which is taken exception to by way of the above Petition. The Petition also takes exception to the order dated 21.12.2013 whereby the District Deputy Registrar has refused to sanction the proposal for confirmation of sale.

6. The principal contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. A. B.