WP 7388/10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7388 OF 2010 ( Asha w/o. Rajendra Dhoot Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. B.V. Virdhe, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. S.G. Dodya, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Mr. G.C. Nandanwar, Advocate for respondent No. 9 to 11. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 1st March, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard finally by consent. Short contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is, the petitioner who is legal heir of deceased guarantor, is not established to be legal representatives and hence, proceedings under section 101, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act cannot be prosecuted against her. 2. Shri. S.G. Dodya for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 states that there was no defence raised in this respect in proceedings under section 101. In the alternative without prejudice he points out that deceased husband of petitioner had mortgaged some properties and those properties after his death have devolved upon petitioner. 3. Advocate Shri. G.C. Navandar for respondent Nos. 9 to 11 WP 7388/10 2 is supporting the cause of petitioner. 4. Learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 accepts the arguments of Advocate Shri. Dhodya. 5. With the assistance of respective counsel, I have perused the orders passed under section 101 by Assistant Registrar on 31.12.2009. 6. The orders nowhere show a finding that property of deceased Rajendra has devolved upon the petitioner. There is also no finding that petitioner is a legal representative of deceased Rajendra as required by provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 7. In absence of these findings, it is apparent that recovery in pursuance of those orders cannot be allowed to proceed against the petitioner. 8. Only to find out the liability of present petitioner in the matter, order dated 31.12.2009 is quashed and set aside. The said order has not been question by borrower i.e. respondent No. 5 to 12. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 therefore are free to proceed against respondent Nos. 5 to 12 for recovery on the basis of said certificate. 9. The respondent No. 2 shall give appropriate opportunity to petitioner and to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the matter and pass fresh orders about the liability of the present petitioner as early as possible and in any case within a period WP 7388/10 3 of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order to him. Petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to appear before the respondent No. 2 on 17th March 2011 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. 10. Petition is thus partly allowed. No costs. Rule is made absolute accordingly. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ] ssc/wp7388.10