Judgment : Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 30/12/2010 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amravati whereby the Application filed by the petitioner for grant of leave under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 for joining the Liquidator as a party respondent to the proceedings filed by the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission came to be rejected. 3) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the above petition can be stated thus : The petitioner herein had deposited an amount of Rs.1,31,00,000/-with the respondent no.1 Bank in a fixed deposit for 31 days, which deposit was to carry interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum. Though the said amount was asked to be refunded by the petitioner, the respondent no.1 did not refund the same, as a consequence of which the petitioner filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for recovery of the said amount. In the interregnum, Official Liquidator came to be appointed on the respondent no.1 Bank. The petitioner had arrayed the Administrator, who was earlier appointed by the State Government as a party respondent to the said complaint. In the said complaint, a written statement came to be filed on behalf of respondent no.1 contending that there is a bar under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 in view of the fact that the respondent no.1 has gone into liquidation and that the Official Liquidator has been appointed. Upon this, the petitioner filed an Application on 3/10/2010 before the Divisional Joint Registrar seeking permission to continue the said Complaint No. 59/2010 filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The respondent no.1 filed its reply to the said Application and amongst the various contentions, which were taken, was the contention that the respondent no.1 was having financial constraints and, therefore, permission should not be granted. The Divisional Joint Registrar considered the said Application filed by the petitioner and as indicated above, by the impugned order dated 30/12/2010 has rejected the said Application. 4) Perusal of the impugned order ex facie discloses that the Divisional Joint Registrar has considered the merits of the claim of the petitioner whilst rejecting the said application. The Divisional Joint Registrar considered the said Application filed by the petitioner and as indicated above, by the impugned order dated 30/12/2010 has rejected the said Application. 4) Perusal of the impugned order ex facie discloses that the Divisional Joint Registrar has considered the merits of the claim of the petitioner whilst rejecting the said application. 5) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The principal contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Divisional Joint Registrar ought not to have rejected the Application filed by the petitioner for continuance of the proceedings before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and more so, to deal with the petitioner's claim on merits. The learned Counsel would contend that it would have been open for the Liquidator, if the proceedings were to be allowed to be continued, to take such defences and raise such contentions as are available and permissible in law before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission after the proceedings were allowed to be continued, but it was not open for the Divisional Joint Registrar to reject the Application of the petitioner on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order. In support of the said contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Narayan s/o Arjunji Vighne and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2011 (1) ALL MR 244) wherein in an almost identical fact situation, this Court held that rejection of the Application by the Registrar to proceed against the Liquidator was improper. This Court observed that it is not open for the Registrar to deal with merits of the claim at the stage of granting permission to proceed against the Liquidator. Paragraphs (6), (7) and (9) of the said judgment are material and reproduced hereunder : “6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the respective Counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the view that the Registrar has committed error in rejecting the application tendered by the employees seeking permission as contemplated by Section 107 of the Mah. Co-op. Societies Act. Having considered the submissions advanced by the respective Counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the view that the Registrar has committed error in rejecting the application tendered by the employees seeking permission as contemplated by Section 107 of the Mah. Co-op. Societies Act. On perusal of the application tendered by the employees, it is evident that the employees are requesting for grant of permission to proceed against the liquidator for recovery of dues payable to them on account of wages/ compensation or other legally recoverable dues.The Registrar while dealing with the applications has observed in the order that the responsibility to make further payment to the employees and workers towards salary and wages rests with respondent No.4 as the employees were employed by respondent No.4 afresh. It is also observed in the order that the claims raised by the employees beyond the period of taking over possession by respondent No.4 M/s. Navalji Cotspin Ltd. Cannot be attributed to the liquidator or Society. It is also observed that taking back the possession of the mill by the liquidator due to breach of conditions of agreement to sale is a matter between the liquidator and the purchaser and it does not make the employees entitled to raise claim in respect of wages or other dues against the liquidator or society. 7. On perusal of the application tendered by the applicants-petitioners herein, it transpires that they are making grievance in respect of no observance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act by the liquidator. So far as the merits of the claim raised by the employees is concerned, the same has to be scrutinized by a proper forum dealing with the dispute that may be raised by the employees, it would be too premature to comment upon the merits of the claim at the stage of grant of permission to initiate proceedings against the liquidator. Even otherwise, it is not open for the Registrar to deal with the aspect of merits of the proposed claim by the employees-petitioners herein. 9. Even otherwise, it is not open for the Registrar to deal with the aspect of merits of the proposed claim by the employees-petitioners herein. 9. It is contended by the Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 that in the reported judgment, the Court found that the reasons recorded by the Registrar are cryptic and the only ground stated therein for rejecting the applications is that if permission is accorded, it would result in putting in motion two proceedings, one before the Industrial Court and another before the liquidator. Although the Court has observed that no satisfactory reasons are recorded by the Registrar, the Court proceeded to observe that grant of permission is a matter of course and a doubt has been raised as regards necessity of securing permission for prosecuting complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The situation in the instant matter is not different than the reported matter. Although the reasons are recorded by the Registrar for his refusal to accord permission, those are wholly irrelevant and unacceptable. It is outside the scope of authority of the Registrar to deal with the merits of the proposed claim that would be raised by the employees. It is for the appropriate forum before whom the proceedings would be initiated to consider the legality and correctness of the claim. Allowing the Registrar to deal with such an aspect would amount to permitting the authority, dealing with application in respect of grant of permission to prejudge the merits of the proposed claim and, according to me, it would not be permissible.” 6) Per contra, it is submitted by learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 that the permission has been rejected by the Divisional Joint Registrar by the impugned order for cogent reasons. According to the learned Counsel, since admittedly respondent no.1 Bank is in liquidation, it is for the petitioner to make a claim before the Liquidator, which claim the Liquidator would deal with in terms of priority that it has to be given. 7) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in my view, the above petition requires to be allowed and the impugned order dated 30/12/2010 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar refusing permission to the petitioner is required to be quashed and set aside. The judgment in the case of Narayan Arjunji Vighne and others (supra) supports the case of the petitioner on all fours. The judgment in the case of Narayan Arjunji Vighne and others (supra) supports the case of the petitioner on all fours. It was not open for the Divisional Joint Registrar to go into the merits of the claim of the petitioner whilst considering an Application to proceed against the respondent no.1. That is the fundamental error, which the Divisional Joint Registrar has committed. Even if the permission is to be granted to proceed against respondent no.1, it would be open for the Liquidator, who then would be arrayed as a party to the said proceedings, to take such contentions and defences as are available in law in respect of claim of the petitioner. 8) In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 30/12/2010 is required to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the Application filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Joint Registrar for proceeding against respondent no.1 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is allowed. It is, however, made clear that it would be open for the Liquidator to take such contentions and raise such defences as are available to him in law in respect of the claim of the petitioner. 9) Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs.