W.P. 5695/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5695/2010 RAMESH CHUDAMAN BADGUJAR VS. DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND OTHERS Mr. B.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. P.S. Gaikwad h/f Mr. D.B. Thoke, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 1st April, 2011. ORAL ORDER: 1 This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, challenging the order and issuance of certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 against him and in favour of respondent No.4 / the Urban Co- operative Bank Ltd.. The petitioner admitted that he attended the proceeding that were commenced before respondent No.2 / Assistant Registrar. He said that he had submitted his detail reply opposing the application. He said that he took various objections to the claim of respondent No.4 and to defend the case. Despite of that respondent No.2 / Assistant Registrar passed the impugned order, dated 24/05/2010. It appears from the judgment and order that respondent No.2 Assistant Registrar perused the documents that were filed before him and held that respondent No.4 had indeed advanced the loan to the petitioner and the same was defaulted. The petitioner took a very peculiar stand in defence. He said that he was neither member of respondent No.4 / Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. nor he availed any W.P. 5695/2010 2 loan. 2 The petitioner challenged the order dated 24/05/2010 mainly on the ground that the order does not contain reasons as to why the certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 should be issued. On perusal of the order, this contention does not appear to be correct. As said above, the decision of respondent No. 2 was based on the documents which were produced before him. In view of this, the impugned order was not passed without recording reasons. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in case of Sandeep Polymer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2011 VOL. 6 Maharashtra Law Reporter page 550. On facts of the case, the Judgment can be distinguished. In the reported case, the certificate issued under section 101 of the Act was issued without passing an order or Judgment. So, this Court held that in such situation, a writ petition would be maintainable and this Court in fact interfere and set aside the certificate. In this case, the petition does not seem to be maintainable, because as said above, the impugned order contains reasons. Secondly, the petitioner has efficacious remedy to challenge the impugned order / certificate, by filing the revision, under section 154 of the Act. The petition should therefore fail. ORDER The writ petition stands dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/2011/April1/wp5695.10 W.P. 5695/2010 3