#Revisional Authority

Allahabad HC reaffirms that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is barred when an efficacious alternative remedy-such as revision under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning Act-exists. The ruling underscores that petitioners must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching constitutional courts, reinforcing the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies in administrative law disputes.

The Bombay High Court ruled that revisional authorities under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act must determine the actual dues payable by examining claims and defenses on merits, rather than rejecting recovery applications for insufficient documentation. This judgment reinforces the quasi-judicial duty of authorities to ensure natural justice in co-operative disputes, particularly where liability is not outright denied but the quantum remains contested.

Bombay High Court holds that Section 154(2A) of the MCS Act mandates a 50% pre-deposit before revision applications can be heard, rendering merits-based review illegal without compliance.