(1) LPA-175.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10118 OF 2010 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5413 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10118 OF 2010 Appasaheb S/o Dattatraya Lohakare APPELLANT/ APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 02ND MAY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge who has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has found that the appellant has an alternate remedy of approaching revisional authority under section 154 (2-A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. In these (2) LPA-175.2011 circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. 2. The learned Advocate has relied on the judgment in the case of Ganeshkumar Makhanlal Chandak and anr. Vs. Nagpur Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. and anr. reported in 2005(2) ALL MR 392 and in the case of Khushal S/o Narayanrao Mundhe reported in 2007(4) Mh.L.J. 333. According to the learned Advocate when notice is not served, the appellant should not be driven to file a Revision Application. In our opinion, all issues raised in the Petition with respect to the notice not being served or the recovery certificate not being proper, can always be raised before the revisional authority and, therefore, we need not entertain this Letters Patent Appeal. The learned Single Judge has committed no error by dismissing the Writ Petition. The Letters Patent Appeal and Civil Application dismissed. The amount of Rs.1 Lac deposited in this Court be returned to the appellant. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp