1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2845 OF 2009 Meghraj s/o Maruti Satpute, R/o-Sukewadi, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Dudhganga Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Dudhganga, Corner, Pavbaki-Sukewadi Road, Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar, Through its Manager, 2) Nanasaheb s/o Murli Satpute, R/o-Sukewadi, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. 3) Dattu s/o Narayan Satpute, R/o-Sukewadi, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. 4) Sau. Laxmibai w/o Meghraj Satpute, R/o-Sukewadi, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. 5) The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.A.B. Kale Advocate h/f. Mr. D.D. Pokharkar for Petitioners. Mr.R.L. Kute Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for Respondent No.5. ... 2 WRIT PETITION NO.2848 OF 2009 Laxmibai w/o Meghraj Satpute, R/o-Sukewadi, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Dudhganga Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Dudhganga, Corner, Pavbaki-Sukewadi Road, Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar, Through its Manager, 2) Nanasaheb s/o Murli Satpute, R/o-Sukewadi, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. 3) Dattu s/o Narayan Satpute, R/o-Sukewadi, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. 4) Meghraj s/o Maruti Satpute, R/o-Sukewadi, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. 5) The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.A.B. Kale Advocate h/f. Mr. D.D. Pokharkar for Petitioners. Mr.R.L. Kute Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent No.5. ... 3 WRIT PETITION NO.2849 OF 2009 Meghraj s/o Maruti Satpute, R/o-Sukewadi, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Dudhganga Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Dudhganga, Corner, Pavbaki-Sukewadi Road, Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar, Through its Manager, 2) Nanasaheb s/o Murli Satpute, R/o-Sukewadi, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. 3) Dattu s/o Narayan Satpute, R/o-Sukewadi, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. 4) The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.A.B. Kale Advocate h/f. Mr. D.D. Pokharkar for Petitioners. Mr.R.L. Kute Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. 4 PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. By these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners are challenging the recovery certificate issued by Respondent No.5 - The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sangamner, under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent No.1 society Dudhganga Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Sangamner filed application under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on 12th December, 2008 before Respondent No.5. Thereafter Respondent No.5 issued notices for hearing and hearing fixed on 29th December, 2008. Thereafter immediately on 31st December, 2008 recovery certificate came to be issued. It is the case of the Petitioners that neither they received any notice from Respondents nor the Respondents intimated them about hearing of the Application under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. The Petitioners 5 specifically stated in the Writ Petitions that they never received notice for hearing of the application under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is further submitted by the Petitioners that without giving any opportunity for filing their reply and/or personal hearing, Respondent No.5 passed order within 15 days i.e. on 31st December, 2008. 2. It is crystal clear from xerox copies of application and order passed by Respondent No.5 that without hearing the Petitioners, the recovery certificates came to be issued. Though Respondent No.5 filed his affidavit in reply stating that the Petitioners were duly served and they remained absent at the time of hearing, it is not possible to accept the same for the reason that Respondent No.5 in his affidavit in reply in Para 4 stated that the Petitioners were duly served on 12th December, 2008, whereas Respondent No.1 society filed its application under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on the same day. In any case without going into the merits of the present case, as the learned 6 counsel for Respondent No.1 society clearly admitted that without hearing the Petitioners Respondent No.5 passed order dated 31st December, 2008 and issued recovery certificates. Therefore recovery certificates issued by Respondent No.5- the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Sangamner are set aside. Matters are remanded back to the concerned authority for fresh hearing. Parties are directed to remain present before Respondent No.5- The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar on 29th September, 2009 at 11.00 a.m. On that day the Petitioners to file their application for seeking documents from Respondent No.1 society, if any. The said applications to be decided by the Authority within one week thereafter. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 Society agreed that the society is ready and willing to provide the documents, as referred by them in the applications for recovery certificates, to the Petitioners immediately on making their application for the same. The said statement is accepted. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sangamner is directed to decide the Respondent No.1 Society's application dated 12th December 2008 after giving opportunity to both the 7 sides, as early as possible, but in any case by the end of December, 2009. 3. In view of the above mentioned directions Writ Petitions are disposed of. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/SEPT09/wp