1 W.P.No.2523/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2523 OF 2011. Bhaskar S/o Shankarrao Mhaske, Age 45 years, Occ.Rikshaw Driver, R/o Bhimnagar, Bhavsingpura, Near Kamgar Kalyan Kendra, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Tq. Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 3. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.,Aurangabad, through its Special Recovery Officer. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.W.Mundhe, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.B.S.Kudale, advocate for the Respondent No.3. ... 2 W.P.No.2523/11 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 07.09.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner impugns the recovery certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar, U/s 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Mr.Mundhe, learned counsel contends that in fact,the matter was settled in Mahalokadalat and the Respondent Bank has received the amount in full and final settlement, still, has proceeded further with the recovery certificate. The learned counsel contends that the Respondent No.2 did not follow the procedure as laid down under Rules 86-A to 86-G of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules. After the written statement was filed by the petitioner,the Respondent No.2 should have kept the matter for filing the claim 3 W.P.No.2523/11 affidavit. No such procedure was followed. Non- observance of the said procedure vitiates the proceedings. The learned counsel further contends that even otherwise in view of the compromise arrived at before the Mahalokadalat, the Respondent is not entitled for any amount. 4. Mr.Kudale, learned counsel for the Respondent Bank submits that in fact, the petitioner himself did not abide by the terms of the award passed in Mahalokadalat. The petitioner is guilty of committing breach of the same. The same was pursuant to the proceedings U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was not a case of full and final settlement. The learned counsel further contends that the Respondent No.2 has taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter and thereby, has issued the recovery certificate. 5. I have gone through the certificate. It appears that the petitioner had filed his written say. Once, the written say is filed, the Respondent No.2 is bound to follow the procedure 4 W.P.No.2523/11 as is laid down under Rule 86-A to 86-G of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules. The said procedure does not appear to have been fallowed scrupulously. It is for the Respondent No.2 to consider the effect of the said alleged compromise before the Mahalokadalat. 6. In light of the above, I set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the Respondent No.2 on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) with the Respondent No.3 Bank within a period four (4) weeks from today. 7. In case the amount is deposited,the Respondent No.2 shall decide the proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.3 U/s 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, against the petitioner afresh after following the procedure laid down under the relevant rules. In case the petitioner fails to deposit Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand), the recovery certificate issued against the petitioner by the Respondent No.2 shall remain intact. 5 W.P.No.2523/11 8. Rule made absolute with above observations. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp252311