1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.832 OF 2009 Nasik District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.N.N.Bhadrashete for the petitioner. Mr.C.T.Chanratre for respondent no.3. Ms.P.S.Cardozo A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 12TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. The petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.8.2008 passed by respondent no.1 rejecting the revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 24.11.2006 passed by respondent no.2 – Commissioner and Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune, under section 107 of the 2 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”). There is no dispute that by the order dated 15.6.2006 respondent no.2 has ordered liquidation of respondent no.3- bank, and in view thereof the petitioner had applied for leave, as provided for under sections 106 and 107 of the Act. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 24.11.2006 rejected the application filed by the petitioners seeking leave, as contemplated under section 106 of the Act, to proceed with Dispute No.649 of 2006 filed by the petitioners against respondent no.3 – bank and its Directors i.e. respondent nos.4 to 22 for recovery of Rs.12,39,77,788/-. It is the petitioner’s case that respondent no.3 – bank and its Directors are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount in view of the execution of a deed of guarantee by respondent nos.4 to 22 taking personal responsibility of repayment of the amount to the petitioners – bank. Respondent No.2 rejected the application of the petitioners without assigning any reason. The revision was also rejected holding that the petitioners can lodge their claim with the liquidator. Both the authorities below have completely overlooked the nature of dispute filed by the petitioners. The dispute is directed against the bank and its Directors stating that they are jointly and severally liable to be pay the amount claimed in the dispute by the petitioners. If the leave, as prayed, is not granted the petitioners will have to proceed 3 against the bank before the liquidator, and against the Directors before the Co-operative Court. Instead, if the leave is granted the Co-operative Court can decide the dispute and if the dispute is allowed, relegate the petitioners to stake their claim against the bank before the liquidator in which case the liquidator can satisfy the claim as per the priority list and in accordance with law. Keeping that in view and having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, the leave as prayed by the petitioners ought to have been granted. Hence the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. Prayer clause (a) reads thus: “(a) This Hon’ble Court be please to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate, writ order or direction in the nature certiorari thereby calling record and proceeding in respect of impugned order dated 4.8.2008 passed by Respondent No.1 and after going through legality there the said order be quashed and set aside and Respondent No.2 be directed to grant a leave to the Petitioner to continue with Dispute No.649 of 2006.” The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)