911-wp-4803-2022.doc Shabnoor IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4803 OF 2022 Vangaon Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Through Authorized S. P. Patil … Petitioner V/s. Anantprasad Dattatraya Babrekar & Ors. … Respondents Manish Deokar i/b Swati Sawant, for Petitioner. Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for the State – respondent. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 4, 2025 P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The present petition challenges the order passed by respondent No.2 while exercising powers under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the MCS Act). 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the revision before respondent No.2 was filed only against an interim order dated 22 May 2014 passed during the pendency of Appeal No.90 of 2012. However, while deciding the revision, respondent No.2 not only set aside the said interim order but also quashed the final order dated 31 March 2017 and the report prepared under Section 88 of the MCS Act on 13 June 2012. According to the petitioner, the Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in doing so. 4. This Court issued notice to respondent No.1. The affidavit of 1 SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Digitally signed by SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2025.11.04 15:06:35 +0530 911-wp-4803-2022.doc service placed on record shows that respondent No.1 has been duly served. However, despite service, respondent No.1 has not appeared before the Court. 5. On examining the impugned order and the revision memo filed before respondent No.2, it becomes clear that the scope of the revision was limited to testing the correctness and legality of the interim order dated 22 May 2014. Respondent No.2 was duty- bound to confine his consideration to that limited issue. However, the record shows that respondent No.2 travelled beyond his jurisdiction. While allowing the revision, he went on to set aside not only the interim order but also the final order dated 31 March 2017 and even the report prepared under Section 88 of the MCS Act. This action clearly exceeds the authority vested in him under Section 154. Once the revision was directed only against the interim order, the Revisional Authority had no jurisdiction to reopen or annul the final adjudication or the report forming the basis of such adjudication. The exercise of power in this manner amounts to jurisdictional overreach. 6. After the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, the only lawful remedy open to respondent No.1 was to challenge the final order dated 31 March 2017 by filing a revision before the competent Revisional Authority. Unless such a revision was properly filed, respondent No.2 had no authority to interfere with or set aside the appellate order and the report under Section 88. The legal position is settled that a Revisional Authority cannot assume jurisdiction over matters not specifically brought before it. The impugned order, therefore, stands vitiated for want of 2 911-wp-4803-2022.doc jurisdiction and cannot be upheld in law. 7. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). 8. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 3