1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2697 OF 2009 Kum. Hemlata Govind Attarde, Age: 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 2, Navin Bhusan Colony/Nagar, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Mantralaya,Mumbai and others. ...Respondents ... Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.H. Borade, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5. (Absent). Mr. P.S. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 & 7. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 28th JULY, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the recovery certificate dated 19-11-2008 issued by respondent No. 3 in proceedings bearing NO. 645/2008 under Section 101 of the Maharashtra CO-operative Societies Act, 1960. Said certificate was issued by respondent No. 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 40,26,947/-. The petitioner raised objection in the petition that the provisions under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 are not applicable as against the guarantor. Respondent No. 3 exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing the said certificate as against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has allegedly guaranteed the repayment of amount, borrowed by respondent No.6. The petitioner further submitted that while passing the impugned order, respondent No. 3 has not even considered the fact that the petitioner has 3 requested for some documents and without considering the request of the petitioner, the recovery certificate was issued. 4. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the parties before passing order under Section 101 of the Maharashtra CO- operative Societies Act, 1960. He pointed out from Para. 6,7 and 8 of affidavit in reply dated 16-06-2009 that the notice was issued by Registered Post A.D. as well as the same was published in daily newspaper “Sakal” dated 24-09-2008. In any case, alternative remedy under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Act, 1960 is available to the petitioner. Recently the Apex Court in the matter of Arun B. Khanjire vs. Ichalkaranji Urbhan Co-operative Bank Limited and others, reported in (2009) 2 S.C.C. 187 held that " admittedly section 154(1) of the above Act confers revisionary powers on the State Government and also the Registrar of 4 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." 5. As alternative remedy under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is available to the petitioner, this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable and hence, the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. (K.K. TATED,J.) sut/JUL09/wp2697.09