JUDGMENT : Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. Shri. Ramanathan C. Sadashivan waives notice on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 and Shri. S. K. Shinde, the Government Pleader waives notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 15th July, 2013 passed by the State Government i.e. the Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation, by which order, the Revision Application filed by the Respondent No. 4 herein, came to be allowed and resultantly the order dated 11th March, 2013, passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, came to be set aside and the order dated 9th June, 2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar came to be confirmed. 3. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary facts, considering the challenge raised in the above Petition. Suffice it to state that on the representation of the Respondent No. 4 who had addressed letter to the State Government and the Hon'ble Lokayukta, Maharashtra in respect of the charges sought to be recovered from the Respondent No. 4 on account of the alleged illegal use of the terrace of the building and charges on account of the penalty which the Respondent No. 4 was liable to pay on account of his alleged obstruction to the work of repairs, that the directions came to be issued to the Petitioner Society which are contained in the operative part of the order of the Deputy Registrar. The said representation which the Respondent No. 4, it seems, has made to the State Government as well as the Lokayukta, was referred to the concerned authorities of the Cooperation Department. It appears that the matter ultimately came to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies 'D' Ward, who, by his order dated 9th June, 2010 held that the demand made by the Petitioner Society against the Respondent No. 4 was not sustainable and therefore directed the Petitioner to delete the amounts claimed towards illegal use of the terrace and penalty for the alleged obstruction of the repair work by the Respondent No. 4, from the monthly bills of the Respondent No. 4. The Petitioner Society, before the Deputy Registrar, sought to justify the claim by relying on the Resolution dated 10th August, 2003, which was in respect of the amount payable by any person who illegally uses the terrace and the Resolution dated 16th May, 2008, by which the Society had resolved to impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/on the member, who obstructs the repairs of the Society. 4. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the said order dated 9th June, 2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, filed an Appeal under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the said Act”), being Appeal No. 158 of 2010 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Divisional Joint Registrar heard the Appeal and by an elaborate order dated 11th March, 2013 allowed the Appeal and set aside the order dated 9th June, 2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar, whilst allowing the Appeal, has held that in issuing the directions that he has issued, the Deputy Registrar has acted beyond his jurisdiction. The Divisional Joint Registrar recorded a finding that any dispute regarding business and resolutions of the General Body of the Society would come within the purview of Section 91 of the said Act and which can be dealt with by the Cooperative Court. The Divisional Joint Registrar further held that the Deputy Registrar ought to have directed the Respondent No. 4 herein to approach the Competent Court for redressal of his grievances. The Divisional Joint Registrar observed that since the Respondent No. 4 had already filed a dispute being No. 169 of 2009 challenging the resolutions of the Society, the matter was subjudice. As indicated above, the Divisional Joint Registrar by his order dated 11th March, 2013, set aside the order dated 9th June, 2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar. 5. The Respondent No. 4 herein, aggrieved by the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar allowing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner Society, filed a Second Revision Application before the State Government, which was numbered as 510 of 2013. The State Government i.e. the Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation, by the impugned order dated 15th July, 2013, has allowed the said Revision Application and thereby set aside the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and has confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 9th June, 2010. The State Government i.e. the Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation, by the impugned order dated 15th July, 2013, has allowed the said Revision Application and thereby set aside the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and has confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 9th June, 2010. The State Government, in Revision, therefore has reiterated what the Deputy Registrar had held namely that the Petitioner Society could not claim the amounts on the basis of the two resolutions passed by the Petitioner Society. As indicated above, it is the said order dated 15th July, 2013 which is impugned in the present Petition. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties i.e. Shri. R.V.Govilkar appearing for the Petitioner, Shri. Sadasivan appearing for the Respondent No. 4 and Shri. S. K. Shinde, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would reiterate the case of the parties before the authorities below, whereas Shri. Govilkar would question the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 79(2) of the said Act having regard to the directions which have been issued there under. The learned Counsel Shri. Sadasivan and the learned Government Pleader would justify the directions as those which can be issued under Section 79 of the said Act. 7. At this stage, it would be therefore be necessary to advert to Section 79 of the said Act, which, for the sake of ready reference, is reproduced herein under. 79. Society's obligation to file returns and statements and Registrar's power to enforce performance of such obligations. (1) The registrar may direct any society or class of societies, to keep proper books of accounts with respect to all sums of money received and expended by the society, and the matters in respect of which the receipt and expenditure take place all sales and purchases of goods by the society, and the assets and liabilities of the society, and to furnish such statements and returns and to produce such records as he may require from time to time; and the officer or officers of the society shall be bound to comply with his order within the period specified therein. (1A) Every society shall file returns within six months of the close of every financial year to which such accounts relate, to the Registrar or to the person authorised by him. (1A) Every society shall file returns within six months of the close of every financial year to which such accounts relate, to the Registrar or to the person authorised by him. The returns shall contain the following matters, namely:( a) annual report of its activities; (b) its audited statement of accounts; (c) plans for disposal of surplus funds as approved by the general body of the society; (d) list of amendments to the byelaws of the society, if any; (e) declaration regarding date of holding of its general body meeting and conduct of elections when due; (f) any other information required by the Registrar in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act. (1B) Every society shall also file a return regarding the name of the auditor or auditing firm from a panel approved by a State Government in this behalf, appointed in the general body meeting together with his written consent, within a period of one month from the date of annual general body meeting. (2) Where any society is required to take any action under this Act, the rules or the byelaws, or to comply with an order made under the foregoing subsection, and such action is not taken(a) within the time provided in this Act, the rules or the bye laws, or the order as the case may be, or (b) where no time is so provided, within such time, having regard to the nature and extent of the action to be taken, as the Registrar may specify by notice in writing. the Registrar may himself, or through a person authorised by him, take such action, at the expense of the society; and such expense shall be recoverable from the society as if it were an arrear of land revenue. the Registrar may himself, or through a person authorised by him, take such action, at the expense of the society; and such expense shall be recoverable from the society as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (3) Where the Registrar takes action under subsection (2), the Registrar may call upon the officer or officers of the society whom he considers to be responsible for not complying with the provisions of this Act, the rules or the byelaws, or the order made under subsection (1) and after giving such officer or officers an opportunity of being heard, may require him or them to pay to the society the expenses paid or payable by it to the State Government as a result of their failure to take action and to pay to the assets of the society such sum not exceeding twenty five rupees as the Registrar may think fit for each day until the Registrar's directions are carried out. (4) The Registrar or the authorised person on his behalf shall scrutinise the returns and information so received and take further necessary action, if required. 8. The essence of Section 79 of the said Act, as can be seen, is regarding the maintenance of proper accounts by the Society. It is towards the said end that the directions can be issued by the Registrar, as can be seen from the subsections of the said provision. In subsection (2) it is provided that if the Society fails in taking any action which is directed by the Registrar in the matter of accounts, the Registrar may impose or through a person authorised by him may take such action at the expense of the Society and such expense shall be recoverable from the Society as arrears of land revenue. Hence, a reading of the said provision exfacie makes it clear that the said provision cannot be invoked for adjudicating or issuing any direction in respect of which there is a dispute between the parties. The provision only relates to the maintenance of the accounts of the Society in a proper form. The power of the Registrar under the said provision can be said to be administrative, and can be invoked in the circumstances mentioned therein. 9. The provision only relates to the maintenance of the accounts of the Society in a proper form. The power of the Registrar under the said provision can be said to be administrative, and can be invoked in the circumstances mentioned therein. 9. In the instant case, as mentioned herein above, the Deputy Registrar invoked the powers under Section 79(2) and directed the Society to delete the amount due towards illegal use of the terrace, the penalty for obstructing the repairs of the terrace, from the maintenance bills of the Respondent No. 4. such a direction, in my view, could not have been issued by the Deputy Registrar, which was rightly corrected by the Divisional Joint Registrar in the Appeal filed by the Society by setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar has rightly observed that the challenge to the Resolutions passed by the Society on the basis of which the amounts have been claimed can only be by way of a Dispute under Section 91 of the said Act before the Cooperative Court and in fact such a Dispute is already filed by the Respondent No. 4. The State Government, in Revision, as can be seen, also committed an error by going into legality and validity of the claim made by the Society on the basis of the said Resolutions and by holding that the Society could not claim the said amount on the basis of the Resolutions has set aside the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Registrar. 10. In my view, having regard to the nature of the power that is conferred by section 79 of the said Act, the directions as issued by the Deputy Registrar and as confirmed by the Hon'ble Minister in Revision could not have been issued. The order passed by the Deputy Registrar is therefore beyond his jurisdiction, as no such power has been vested in him under Section 79 of the said Act. The Revisional Authority has therefore erred in not exercising jurisdiction in a matter where the initial order passed by the Deputy Registrar was without jurisdiction. In my view therefore, the exercise of Writ Jurisdiction is warranted. The Revisional Authority has therefore erred in not exercising jurisdiction in a matter where the initial order passed by the Deputy Registrar was without jurisdiction. In my view therefore, the exercise of Writ Jurisdiction is warranted. The impugned order dated 15th July, 2013 of the State Government and the order dated 9th June, 2010 of the Deputy Registrar would have to be quashed and set aside and the same are accordingly quashed and set aside. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs of the Petition.