{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7002 OF 2008 Dnyaneshwar Sukhdeo Khomne R/o Kanchanwadi, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 01. The Adarsh Mahila Gramin Nagari Sahakri Bank Ltd., Aurangabad Through its Manager, 02. The Special Recovery Officer, (Maharashtra State Cooperative Department) The Adarsh Mahila Gramin Nagari Sahakari Bank, Ltd., Aurangabad 03. The Assistant Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.P.S.Pawar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.M.R.Chhallani, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 (Absent) Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, Addl.G.P. For respondent No.3 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 29th June 2009 PER COURT: 1. Factual matrix, which gave rise to file the present writ {2} petition can be summarized as under - Respondent No.1 advanced loan to Kamalbai Vishwanath Kakade and Ganesh Vishwanath Kakade in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to which the petitioner and one Kondiba Khanduji Wanole were guarantors and as the principal borrower failed to repay the loan amount, respondent No.1 applied for issuance of certificate u/s 101 (1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Accordingly, after giving opportunity to all the parties, vide order dated 24.10.2005, certificate came to be issued in favour of the bank and in execution under Rule 107 (6) of the MCS Rules, salary of the petitioner came to be attached. Being aggrieved by the said attachment order dated 28.08.2008 the petitioner has filed present writ petition challenging attachment of his salary u/s 156 read with Rule 107 (6) of the MCS Rules, in view of certificate issued vide order dated 24.10.2005. 2. In response to the notice, third respondent appeared and filed affidavit in reply on 15.01.2009. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed affidavit in reply on 24.06.2009, interalia stating that proper remedy is to file revision u/s 154 of the MCS Act and not the writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the proceedings annexed along with the writ petition. It is to be noted that payment of the petitioner is attached under Rule 107 (6) of the MCS Rules in execution, as the mode of execution is provided {3} under Rule 107 of the MCS Rules, and the same is at par with with procedure of execution of decree provided under Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. The procedure about execution of the decree or mode of execution of certificates, issued u/s 101 (1) of the MCS Act is a self contended code which deals with all the contingencies. 4. Rule 107 sub rule 19 (a) and (b) contemplates that if there is any objection about the mode of execution of certificate of recovery issued u/s 101 (1) of MCS Act, then the objections to be raised under Sub Rule 19 (a) and (b) of Rule 107 of the MCS Rules, before the Recovery Officer. In case such objection is raised then the Recovery Officer to decide the same and thereafter to start the recovery proceeding. Remedy is provided under Rule 107, sub rule 19 (c) of the MCS Rules, that in case any adverse order is passed by the Recovery Officer, then that order to be challenged by way of a suit. In the premise, as the remedy is provided under Rule 107 (19) (a) and (b) of the MCS Rules, the writ petition is not the remedy to challenge the execution as contended under Rule 107 of the MCS Rules. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, considering the grievances of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. a) The petitioner to file objection petition, if any, before the Recovery Officer i.e. respondent No.2 within a period of 2 weeks from today. {4} b) The Recovery Officer to decide the objections raised by the petitioner on its own merits, in accordance with law. c) In case the order passed by the Recovery Officer is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, then the petitioner may file appropriate suit as provided under Rule 107 (19) (c) of the MCS Rules. However, in that event, the interim protection granted in the present petition to remain in force for a period of 4 weeks after the order passed by the Recovery Officer on the objections raised by the petitioner. Writ petition stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/wp7002-08