(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3232 OF 2011 1. Smt. Indumati Raghunath Badgujar, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Household, R/o. Saneguruji Colony, Amalner, Taluka : Amalner, Dist. : Jalgaon. 2. Sanjay s/o. Raghunath Badgujar, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Service, R/o. Saneguruji Colony, Amalner, Taluka : Amalner, Dist. : Jalgaon. Through G.P.A. Holder, Dagadu s/o. Sukhlal Dhangar, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Private Service, R/o. Chopda, Taluka : Chopda, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioners. versus 1. Chopda Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Chopda, Through its Manager, Pankanj Plaza, Main Road, Chopda, Taluka : Chopda, District : Jalgaon. 2. The Special Recovery and Sales Officer, Class-I, Chopda Urban Coop. Bank Ltd., Chopda, Pankanj Plaza, Main Road, Chopda, Taluka : Chopda, Dist. : Jalgaon. (2) 3. Suresh s/o. Magan Badgujar, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Business, R/o. 13, Sahayog Colony, Chopda, Taluka : Chopda, District : Jalgaon. 4. Shri Vijay s/o. Dattatrya Patil, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Shiv Colony, Chopda, Taluka : Chopda, District : Jalgaon. 5. Shri Dilip s/o. Waman Patil, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Wardi, Taluka : Chopda, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Milind M. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27TH APRIL 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. M.M. Joshi, for the petitioners. (3) 2. The petitioners are guarantors and their relative, respondent no.3, is the borrower. Challenge is to Revenue Recovery Certificate (For short, "RRC") issued in the year 2008 with contention, that both petitioners are wrongly shown as co- borrowers and, in fact, they are only guarantors. By inviting attention to other documents, effort is to demonstrate that notices of RRC have been sent on wrong address when petitioners have never resided at that place. Reliance is being placed upon judgments of this court reported at (i) 2011(2) Mh.L.J. 194, in the case of Vithal s/o. Laxman Fatangade & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, and (ii) 2007(4) Mh.L.J. 333, in the case of Khushal s/o. Narayanrao Mundhe Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, to urge that when notices are not served, RRC itself is bad and must be quashed and set aside. 3. During hearing, it has been pointed out that respondent no.3, Suresh (alleged sole borrower), has filed dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and after dismissal thereof, has preferred an appeal before Maharashtra Cooperative Appellate Court. 4. The RRC, as issued, mentions the addresses of both the petitioners. According to Adv. Mr. M.M. Joshi, those addresses are not supplied by the petitioner and are written by the creditor Bank i.e. respondent no.1 subsequently. In other (4) words, effort is to contend that both the petitioners have signed on blank papers. 5. In writ jurisdiction, I am not inclined to accept this contention on behalf of petitioners. Petitioners have got remedy of filing revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Prima facie it appears that notices are sent on addresses which are mentioned in RRC. All questions are, therefore, disputed questions and can be raised by the petitioners before revisional authority. 6. Other contention is, respondent no.3 / borrower had paid amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- out of loan received by him to son of Chairman of respondent no.1 and thereafter that amount has been refunded to Suresh. There is some dispute about this amount. Again, issue can be looked into by the revisional authority. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter in this jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3232