1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2101 OF 2009 Rangnath s/o Ramchandra Ghorpade, R/o-H-20/7, N-11, Navnath Nagar, HUDCO, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Co-operation & Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad Taluka, Aurangabad. 3) The Malkapur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Malkapur, Having registered office at 'Dhanshree', Malkapur, Dist-Buldhana, Through its Special Recovery Officer, 4) The Malkapur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Malkapur, Having its Branch at Jadhavwadi, Aurangabad. Through its Special Recovery Officer. 5) Ramnath s/o Sminath Shelke, Proprietor of Aniket Provision & General Stores, N-11, H-6, Navnath Nagar, HUDCO, Aurangabad, R/o-Kumbepha, Tq. & Dist- Aurangabad. 2 6) Sajanrao s/o Bajirao Edhate, R/o- K-46/2, N-11, HUDCO, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. .... Mr.C.V. Thombre Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Deelip Bankar Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.L.D. Vakil Advocate for the Respondent No.4. Mrs. S.L. Awchar Advocate for Respondent No.5. .... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 27TH JULY, 2009. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 16th April, 2007 passed by the Assistant Registrar under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for recovery of sum of Rs. 3 2,14,540/. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner already deposited an amount of more than Rs.1,00,000/- with the Respondent Bank after passing the order dated 16th April, 2007. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 Bank states that alternate remedy is available under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and therefore Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the Judgment in the matter of Khushal s/o Narayanrao Mundhe vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2007 (4) Mh. L.J. Page 333, in which learned Single Judge of this Court held that if recovery certificate issued without notice, the same is illegal and therefore the Court have power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the same. In that Authority (supra), the High Court held the same in the facts and circumstances of that particular case. 4. In any case, remedy of Revision is available to 4 the Petitioner under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. As alternate remedy is available to the Petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on 16th April, 2007, the present Petition is not maintainable. The Petitioner may avail alternate remedy provided under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and may prefer Revision Application as contemplated under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 5. The amount deposited by the Petitioner with the Respondent Bank after passing the order dated 16th April, 2007, shall be considered as sufficient compliance within the meaning of Section 154 (2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Revisional Authority may consider the Revision Application, if presented by the Petitioner within three weeks from today, in accordance with the provisions of law. 6. In this view of the matter Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to avail alternate remedy as indicated above. Interim stay 5 granted by this Court, to continue for four weeks from today. 7. Rule stands discharged. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/JULY09/wp2101.09