1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6357 OF 2009 Raghunath s/o Shama Rathod, age: 55 years, Occ: Agril., R/o M.Post Kachner Tanda No.6, Tq. and District Aurangabad. Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Cooperation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2 The Commissioner & Registrar, Cooperation, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3 The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4 The Deputy Registrar (Shri B.L.Jadhav), Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad Taluka, Aurangabad. 5 Aurangabad Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., through its Liquidator, Gulmandi, Aurangabad. 2 6 Aurangabad Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., through its Manager, Gulmandi, Aurangabad. 7 The Special Recovery Officer, Aurangabad Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., Gulmandi, Aurangabad. 8 Mukesh s/o Baburao Pawar, age: 24 years, Occ: Education, R/o Plot No.21, Vasant Nagar, Near Jawahar Colony, Aurangabad. 9 Ravindra Devidas Rathod, age: 24 years, Occ: Education, R/o Plot No.23/1, Banjara Colony, Aurangabad. Respondents Mr.Shrigopal G. Dodya, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.A.R.Kale, advocate holding for Mr.A.R.Joshi, advocate for Respondents No.5 to 7. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6361 OF 2009 1 Rajaram s/o Devidas Rathod, age: 30 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Plot No.23/1, Banjara Colony, Aurangabad. 2 Ravindra s/o Devidas Rathod, age: 24 years, Occ: studying, R/o Plot No.23/1, Banjara Colony, Aurangabad. Petitioners 3 Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Cooperation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2 The Commissioner & Registrar, Cooperation, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3 The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4 The Deputy Registrar (Shri B.L.Jadhav), Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad Taluka, Aurangabad. 5 Aurangabad Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., through its Liquidator, Gulmandi, Aurangabad. 6 Aurangabad Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., through its Manager, Gulmandi, Aurangabad. 7 The Special Recovery Officer, Aurangabad Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., Gulmandi, Aurangabad. 8 Mukesh s/o Baburao Pawar, age: major, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.21, Vasant Nagar, 4 Near Jawahar Colony, Aurangabad. 9 Sunil s/o Reva Chavan, age: major, Occ: Business, R/o Vasant Nagar, Jawar Colony, Aurangabad. Respondents Mr.Shrigopal G. Dodya, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.A.R.Kale, advocate holding for Mr.A.R.Joshi, advocate for Respondents No.5 to 7. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 1 st September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for contesting respondents. 2 An application was tendered by Respondents No.5, 6 and 7 claiming recovery of amount to the tune of Rs.26,99,415/- and Rs.23,32,958/- respectively, along with interest. The applications tendered by the bank for issuance of recovery certificate were taken up for consideration by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad and after extending an opportunity of hearing to petitioners in both the petitions, the Deputy Registrar was pleased to issue recovery certificates, as contemplated by law. 5 3 Petitioners, in both the petitions, are challenging the orders of issuance of recovery certificates on the ground that the Deputy Registrar ought not to have taken up the matters for consideration as he himself was functioning as liquidator appointed by the State Government in respect of the Bank i.e. Respondents No.5 & 6. It is pointed out that one Shri B.L.Jadhav, who has passed the impugned orders in the capacity of Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad, was appointed as liquidator by an order dated 24.11.2006. The liquidator has assumed charge of the office of liquidator after his appointment. It is contended that the liquidator has stepped into the shoes of the Management of the Bank and as the person appointed was himself interested in the cause, which was being agitated before the deciding authority, it was not permissible for him to render decision in the matter. It is stated that a person cannot be Judge of his own cause and as such, the impugned orders passed in the matters by the Deputy Registrar, who himself was functioning as liquidator appointed by the State Government, are bad in law. 4 This position stated above, is not controverted by the contesting respondents. It is needless to observe that justice need not only be done but same shall be demonstrated to have been done. In the instant matters, although petitioners have not specifically disclosed as to what prejudice is caused to them, but in order to maintain sanctity of the justice delivery system, it is 6 desirable that the matters may be remitted back once again for rendering decision afresh by the concerned authority. 5 A grievance is made by the petitioners that they have not been extended fullest opportunity to put forth their contentions before the Deputy Registrar. It is contended that they are not liable to pay the amount as directed by the Deputy Registrar. 6 The arguments advanced by the petitioners and objections raised by them are required to be dealt with by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies dealing with the case in respect of issuance of recovery certificates. I, therefore, do not propose to go into merits of the controversy and make any observations in respect of issuance of certificates. The adjudication in the mater by the Deputy Registrar, who himself was functioning as liquidator in respect of Respondent-Bank, is not in consonance with the observance of principles of natural justice. 7 In this view of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad on 21.02.2007, in respect of issuance of recovery certificates as against petitioners in both the petitions, needs to be quashed and set aside and the matters need to be remitted back to the concerned authority for fresh consideration in accordance with 7 provisions of law. It is pointed out that presently Shri B.L.Jadhav is not the person holding charge as liquidator and he is also not holding the office of Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad. In this view of the matter, while remitting the matter back for fresh consideration, petitioners, who are borrowers of Respondent-bank, need to be put to terms. 8 In the result, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.02.2007, passed by Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad, in respect of issuance of recovery certificates against petitioners in both these petitions, are quashed and set aside. Petitioners in both the petitions are directed to deposit amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs) each before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad, as a precondition for fresh consideration of the matters in respect of issuance of recovery certificates in pursuant to the applications tendered by the Respondent-Bank, in observance of the directions issued by this Court. Petitions in both the petitions shall deposit amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.Five lacs) each before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad, within a period of four weeks from today. On making deposit of the amount by the petitioners, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad, shall take up the applications tendered by Respondent-Bank for issuance of recovery certificates for consideration and shall decide same within four weeks thereafter i.e. within eight weeks from today. The Deputy Registrar, Co- 8 operative Societies, Aurangabad, may pass appropriate orders in respect of amount of Rs.5 lacs each, that would be deposited by the petitioners, at the time of rendering decision in the applications presented by Respondent-Bank under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, in respect of issuance of recovery certificates. In the event of failure to comply with the direction in respect of deposit of amount by the petitioners, instant order passed in these petitions shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and both the petitions shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 9 Rule is accordingly made absolute. However, in the facts and circumstances of these cases, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp635709