19 WP No.9641.2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9641 OF 2023 MADHAV SHAMRAO HODAGIR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav B. Kulkarni h/f Mr. A. S. Usmanpurkar AGP for Respondents-State : Ms. D. S. Jape Advocate for Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Shriram V. Deshmukh ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Date : 4th March, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 29th May 2023 passed by respondent No. 2 - Registrar General of Money Lenders & Special Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune in Revision Application No. 40/2022, whereby the revision filed by respondent no.7 came to be allowed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, respondent No.2 heard the matter finally on 7th December, 2022 and the matter was reserved for order. The final order was passed on 29th May 2023 i.e. after a delay of more than 8 weeks as mandated 2026:BHC-AUG:11729 19 WP No.9641.2023 -2- by the judgment in the case of Smt. Savitri Chandrakesh Pal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2009(4) ALL MR 194. 4. He brought my attention to the paragraph no. 17 sub- paragraph no. 14 of the Smt. Savitri (supra) which reads as under:- “17. …… (14) A speaking order shall be passed by the authority hearing the matter as early as possible after the hearing is concluded and, as far as possible, within a period of four to eight weeks from the conclusion of the hearing, on the basis of the record before it as well as the submissions made at the hearing. The order must contain reasons in support of the order.” 5. Upon perusal of the record, the Page No. 171 reveals that the matter was finally heard on 7th December, 2022 and Page No.178 reveals that the same was issued on 29th May 2023. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, by adopting the same view taken in Smt. Savitri (supra), I am inclined to quash and set aside the order passed by respondent No.2 and remand the matter for fresh decision, on the ground that respondent No.2 was required to pass the final order within 8 weeks after the matter was reserved for order. 6. In view thereof, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order passed by respondent no.2-Registrar General of Money Lenders & Special Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune in Revision Application No.40/2022 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh decision thereon. 19 WP No.9641.2023 -3- 7. It is made clear that this Court has not recorded any finding on the merits of the matter. Respondent No.2 shall decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 8. The parties shall appear before respondent No.2 on 8th April, 2026. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Omkar Joshi