1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6325 OF 2009 UMESH LAXMANRAO KULKARNI ..PETITIONER Versus LOK VIKAS NAGARI SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS ... Shri R.V.Gore, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri N.B.Patil, AGP for respondent No. 3. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATED: October 1, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner files affidavit of service dt. 29.9.2009, stating that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are served on 25.9.2009 at 4.30 p.m. 3. In this petition, the petitioner, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 6.10.2006 passed by respondent No.3 - Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, under section 101 2 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for brevity, "the Act of 1960" hereinafter). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without issuing any notice as required by law, respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order dated 6.10.2006 and issued recovery certificate against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondents forwarded a notice of the proceeding to the petitioner's office address by registered post acknowledgment due but the same was not acknowledged by the petitioner personally and therefore, there is no notice to the petitioner. He further submitted that if the notice is not issued as required by law, then the proceeding under section 101 of the Act of 1960 needs to be set aside. In support this submission he relied upon the judgment in the case of Khushal Narayanrao Mundhe Vs. State of Maharashtra [2007 (4) Bom.C.R.350]. 5. No doubt, if the notice is not issued to the party, then proceeding can be set aside as claimed. So far in the present case, the petitioner has annexed zerox copy of the acknowledgment issued by the postal authorities, which shows that notice was duly accepted by the petitioner's office. There is a stamp on the said acknowledgment, which shows that the notice was duly served on the petitioner. Apart from that, under section 154 of the Act of 1960, the revision is maintainable. If alternate remedy is available, then the petitioner shall exhaust the same and then prefer writ petition, if need so arises. The Apex Court, in the matter of Arun B. Khanjire Vs. Ichalkaranji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others 3 [(2009) 2 SCC 187] took the following view. " ..... Admittedly, Section 154(1) of the above Act confers revisionary powers on the State Government and also the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under the Act. It also empowers the State Government or the Registrar to satisfy themselves as to the legality or the propriety of any such decision or order and to modify, annul or reverse the same after giving the person affected thereby an opportunity of being heard either suo motu or on an application." 6. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any substance in the present writ petition, as the alternate remedy is available to the petitioner under section 154 of the Act of 1960. 7. In the result, writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.) akl