vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4890 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4890 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4890 OF 2008 Vasai Janata Co-operative Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. M/s.Pristine Systems & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.4940 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4940 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4940 OF 2008 Vasai Janata Co-operative Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. M/s.Pristine Systems & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.4891 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4891 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4891 OF 2008 Vasai Janata Co-operative Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. M/s.Pristine Systems & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.5204 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5204 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5204 OF 2008 Vasai Janata Co-operative Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. M/s.Pristine Systems & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.5209 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5209 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5209 OF 2008 Vasai Janata Co-operative Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. M/s.Pristine Systems & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents : 2 : a/w WRIT PETITION NO.5210 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5210 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5210 OF 2008 Vasai Janata Co-operative Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. M/s.Pristine Systems & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.5211 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5211 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5211 OF 2008 Vasai Janata Co-operative Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. M/s.Pristine Systems & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.H.S. Shreepadmurthy for Petitioner in WP Nos.4890, 4891, 4940, 5204, 5209, 5210 and 5211 of 2008 Mr.G.S. Godbole for Resp. No.2 in WP 4890 of 2008 and for Resp. Nos.3 and 6 in WP 4891 and 4940 of 2008 and for Respondent No.1 in WP 5204, 5209, 5210 and 5211 of 2008. Mr.A.H. Palekar, AGP, for Resp. No.9 in WP 4890, 4891, 4940, 5209 of 208 and for Resp. No.5 in WP 5204 of 2008 and for Resp. No.4 in WP 5210 of 2008, for Resp. NO.5 in WP 5211 of 2008 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 24, 2008 NOVEMBER 24, 2008 NOVEMBER 24, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . These petitions have been filed against the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, entertaining the revision applications without following the provisions of law, namely, section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The facts involving in the present petitions are similar and : 3 : therefore, they are being decided together. 2. Respondent No.1 in these petitions applied for a cash credit facility from the petitioner. The amount was not repaid by Respondent No.1 in accordance with the terms of the agreement and therefore, the petitioner moved the Special Recovery Officer for issuance of a certificate u/s 101 of the Act. The application was dismissed for default. Thereafter a fresh application was preferred by the petitioner for the same relief. The Deputy Registrar rejected the application on 23.6.2005. 3. Revision applications were preferred by the petitioner. They were allowed by remanding the matters to the Deputy Registrar. Aggrieved by this order, the respondents in these petitions preferred writ petitions in this Court which were decided on 9.2.2007. All contentions of the parties were left open, permitting them to raise them before the Deputy Registrar. After the remand, the revision applications were allowed and recovery certificates were issued as ordered by the Deputy Registrar on 27.2.2007. The order was challenged by Respondent No.1 i.e. the principal borrower, in each of these petitions. The revision applications were entertained by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Konkan Division, inspite of no : 4 : amount being deposited by Respondent No.1 as required u/s 154(2A). The revision applications were allowed on 3.5.2008. Aggrieved by these orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, the petitioner has preferred the present petitions. 4. It appears that after the revisional authority had passed an order against the order of the Deputy Registrar issuing a recovery certificate in favour of the petitioner bank, one of the respondents herein, namely, Progressive Engineering Company preferred writ petition No.610 of 2008 before this Court. The petitioner contended that the Divisional Joint Registrar while passing interim orders, could not have directed the release of the attached property without ascertaining the dues of the petitioner bank and without disposing of the matters finally. This writ petition was disposed of on 7.2.2008 by directing the Divisional Joint Registrar to dispose of the revision application after compliance with the provisions of section 154(2A). 5. The Divisional Joint Registrar, however, did not bother to direct the revision applicants in each of these petitions to deposit the amount as required u/s 154(2A) despite the observations made by this Court on 7.2.2008. The revision applications were allowed on 3.5.2008 and the orders issuing the recovery : 5 : certificates were set aside. It is these orders which have been impugned in the present petitions. 6. Before I proceed to deal with the petitions on merits, it is necessary to consider the notice issued to the Divisional Joint Registrar on 13.8.2008 directing him to show-cause why action against him should not be adopted under the Contempt of Courts Act for not having complied with the order of this Court on 7.2.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.610 of 2008. The then Divisional Joint Registrar has filed an affidavit in which he has tendered an unconditional apology for overlooking the fact that the provisions of section 154(2A) have not been complied with in all the revision applications. He has explained in his affidavit that he was under the impression that the order passed in Writ Petition No.610 of 2008 related only to revision application No.88 of 2007 and not to the other revision applications. While accepting the unconditional apology tendered by the Divisional Joint Registrar, he is warned not to repeat such mistakes in future and to ensure the compliance of the provisions of law. The notice issued against the Divisional Joint Registrar is therefore discharged. 7. As regards the merits of the matter, there can be no dispute that the pre-requisite of depositing 50% of the amount due under the recovery certificate is a : 6 : condition precedent for entertaining a revision application u/s 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. In fact, the provision prohibits the revisional authority to entertain a revision against a recovery certificate issued u/s 101 unless the applicant deposits with the concerned society, 50% of the total dues recoverable. In these circumstances, there is no discretion left with the revisional authority as to whether to entertain a revision application against the order of issuance of a certificate u/s 101 without the deposit of 50% of the dues. 8. In view of the fact that such a deposit has not been made, the orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar must be set aside. 9. The revision applications are remanded to the Divisional Joint Registrar who will entertain them only if the requisite deposit is made in accordance with section 154(2A) of the Act. In case no such deposit is made, the Divisional Joint Registrar shall deal with the revision applications in accordance with law. 10. Petitions are allowed. No costs.