WP 10879/09 1 SSK/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10879 OF 2009 The Manager, Smt. Lilatai Vishwanath Patil Nagari, Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mydt. Sangli ....Petitioner Versus Shri Anant Prasad Vedvyas Umarji & Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Manjiri Parasnis, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. R. Ganbavale, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for Respondent No.2 CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 16th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: Since Mr. Ganbavale, learned Counsel is appearing for Respondent No.1, the appearance of Mr.Chandrachud, Advocate be removed. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 3. The petition takes exception to the order dated 23rd July, 2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur under which the Demand Draft for an amount of Rs.1,13,463/- was returned to Respondent No.1. WP 10879/09 2 SSK/2 4. The proceedings arise out of issuance of certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 against Respondent No.1. This certificate was challenged directly by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court gave liberty the the Respondent No.1 to file revision under section 154 of the M.C.S.Act, 1960 subject to deposit of 50% amount of recoverable dues under the 101 certificate. The Respondent No.1 thereafter deposited a Demand Draft of Rs.1,13,463/- with the Divisional Joint Registrar being 50% of the amount of recoverable dues. On the basis of this deposit, the Respondent No.1’s revision was entertained and same was also dismissed on merits. So far as the amount of the Demand Draft is concerned, it was returned to the Respondent No.1 on the ground that the Divisional Joint Registrar’s Office has no Bank Account. This order has is impugned in the present petition. 5. Reading of the provisions of section 154(2A) makes it clear that 50% amount of the total recoverable dues is required to be deposited with the concerned Co-operative Society. However, in the present case, the 50% of the amount viz. Rs.1,13,463/- was deposited in the Office of the Divisional Joint Registrar under the directions of this Court. WP 10879/09 3 SSK/2 6. The Petitioner claims that an amount to the tune of Rs.3,77,000/- approximately is due from Respondent No.1 towards outstanding. On the contrary, the contention of Respondent No.1 is that, due amount as on today is only Rs.67,347/-. The dispute regarding exact recoverable amount cannot be gone into in this proceedings. The dispute, best can be resolved by the Recovery Officer. In my opinion, the petition can be conveniently disposed of by passing the following order : 1. The Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit with the Petitioner, an amount of Rs.63,347/- within a period of two weeks from today. 2. So far as rest of the claim of the Petitioner-Bank is concerned, same shall be decided by the Recovery Officer in execution of the certificate under section 101 of the M.C.S.Act. Needless to mention that the Recovery Officer shall afford an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. (R. V. MORE, J.)