1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1151/2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Heard learned counsel for the parties. The only relief claimed in this petition is to issue direction to the respondent no.2 to dispose of R.P.No.55/2007 pending before him in view of compromise purshis dated 20.1.2010 and also cancel the order dated 6.1.2010. In so far as the latter relief is concerned, that can be granted only if the compromise purshis were to be accepted, which can be the basis to dispose of R.P.No. 2 55/2007. It is not possible for us to issue peremptory order against the respondent no. 2 to dispose of R.P.No.55/2007 without considering the appropriateness of the compromise purshis. For, that is the matter, which will have to be considered by the Recovery Officer while disposing of R.P.No. 55/2007. The order that can be passed by this Court is merely to direct the respondent no.2 to decide R.P.No.55/2007 in accordance with law. Counsel for the petitioner, however, insisted that a direction be issued to the Recovery Officer to pass order on the basis of compromise purshis as has been done in the case of M/s.Seth Kashi Ram Chemical (India) V/s State of Haryana & others reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court, 478. Reliance placed on this decision is inapposite. In that matter, challenge was to the legality of certain proceedings initiated by the Corporation against the petitioner in the matter of recovery of certain debts due to it by putting up certain hypothecated property for sale by public auction. In the present 3 case, the petitioner claims that R.P.No. 55/2007 be disposed of on the basis of compromise purshis and not questioning the jurisdiction or authority of the Recovery Officer. Be that as it may, it is for the Recovery Officer to consider the efficacy of the compromise purshis and pass appropriate order on that basis. The attempt of the petitioner seems to pre-empt that process. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Recovery Officer has no authority to consider the reliefs available to the petitioner. In spite of explaining this position repeatedly, the counsel for the petitioner insists that this Court ought to pass the order, which can be done by the Recovery Officer. However, considering the relief claimed in this petition and for reasons already noted, no further elaboration is required. The petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner shall pay costs quantified at Rs.2,000/- and deposit the same with the High Court Legal Services Authority at 4 Aurangabad within a period of one week from today. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J) Dt/- 17.02.2010 ndk/c172104