1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 689 OF 2010 (Wasudeo Suryabhan Bawankule vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 23, 2010. Heard Shri Ninawe, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Khade, learned AGP for respondent No.1 & 4 and Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 07.12.2009 passed by Respondent No.1 – dismissing revision under Section 154 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. In that revision, RRC dated 05.02.2007 for an amount of Rs.24,470/- was challenged on the ground that on scheduled date of hearing i.e. on 25.01.2007, the petitioner was required to attend the funeral of his near relative and hence could not participate in hearing. It is the contention of the petitioner that Respondent No.2 - Cooperative Society is only for women and the petitioner cannot be and is not its member and he has not borrowed loan from it. Shri Patil, learned counsel, on the other hand has pointed out that against RRC issued on 05.02.2007, revision was filed on 02.04.2007 and in that revision, 2 this ground of “no member” was not there and it was sought to be added by amendment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, that amendment was allowed while according to Shri Patil, this amendment in relation to “no member” was rejected. However, considering the nature of order which I propose to pass, it is not necessary for me to look into more details of this controversy. Shri Patil, learned counsel further argues that the reason for absence on 25.01.2007 has not been substantiated at all. During hearing, Shri Ninawe, learned counsel has stated that as per statutory condition, 50% of the amount demanded was deposited by the petitioner with Respondent No.2. He pointed out a statement in writ petition that on 25.01.2007, he was required to attend funeral of his near relative and hence he could not get time to inform this fact to Respondent No.4. He has further pointed out that RRC came to be issued on 05.02.2007 itself. He also expressed readiness and willingness of the petitioner to show his bonafides by depositing some more amount with Respondent No.2, if he is given necessary opportunity. Shri Patil, learned counsel, states that after adjusting 50% amount deposited by the petitioner at the time of filing revision, the amount along with interest as outstanding today is Rs.23,711/-. Shri Ninawe, learned counsel states that the petitioner will deposit with Respondent No.2 an amount of Rs.15,000/- only to show 3 his bonafides within a period of two weeks from today. This deposit of Rs.15,000/- shall be without prejudice to rights and contentions of the parties. If such an amount is deposited by the petitioner with Respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from today, the impugned RRC dated 05.02.2007 shall stand recalled and the petitioner as also Respondent No.2 shall appear before Respondent No.4 on 15.03.2010 for further consideration of application under Section 101 of the Act, moved by Respondent No.2. The authority shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted by that authority, the authority shall direct Respondent No.2 to refund the amount back to the petitioner. If the contentions of the petitioner are rejected and any balance amount is found due from the petitioner, Respondent No.4 – authority shall issue RRC for that amount in accordance with law. Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.