Garadgaon Machhimar Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Gradgaon v. Govt. Of Maha., Agriculture, Animal Husbandary Dairy Devp., Fishery Dept., Thr. Secretary And Other

1609wp5312.15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5312 of 2015 (Garadgaon Machhimar Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Garadgaon, Tah. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana, through its President, Shoeb Sheikh Amir Qureshi v. Govt. of Maharashtra, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry Dairy Development, Fishery Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai, through its Secretary, and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.K. Tambde, Advocate for Petitioner.

Ms P.D. Rane, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

Date : 16 th September, 2015 The appeal filed by the petitioner-Society under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 has been allowed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, by his order dated 10-12-2014. The registration of the respondent No.5-Society has been cancelled. The order further directs de-registration of the respondent No.5-Society. The order is not in any way against the petitioner-Society. It is not understood as to how the petitioner is aggrieved by such order passed by the District Deputy Registrar. The revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 154 of the said Act has been dismissed on 8-6-2015, and this order of revision is also under challenge before this Court. In view of the fact that it is the respondent No.5-Society which is aggrieved by the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar of de-registration of Society, the question of preferring revision under Section 154 of the said Act by the petitioner

1609wp5312.15.odt did not arise. Hence, no fault can be found with both the orders passed under Sections 152 and 154 of the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition challenges the communications issued by the Minister on 18-6-2015, 23-6-2015 and 1-7-2015. The learned counsel is unable to point out the provision under which such communications have been issued. In fact, these communications are not the orders, but the same are administrative in nature. The Single Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain any petition challenging the administrative orders. The petition is dismissed.

Judge.

Lanjewar