1 wp4015of10.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO.4015 OF 2010 P. S. Ullal .... Petitioner Versus Shrikumar Co.op. Housing Society Ltd & ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4016 OF 2010 Suresh Checkar .... Petitioner Versus Shrikumar Co.op. Housing Society Ltd & ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4017 OF 2010 S. Vishwanathan .... Petitioner Versus Shrikumar Co.op. Housing Society Ltd & ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4018 OF 2010 I. Fernandis .... Petitioner Versus Shrikumar Co.op. Housing Society Ltd & ors ...Respondents WITH 2 wp4015of10.sxw WRIT PETITION NO.4019 OF 2010 S. J. Patil .... Petitioner Versus Shrikumar Co.op. Housing Society Ltd & ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4020 OF 2010 C. H. Vishwanath .... Petitioner Versus Shrikumar Co.op. Housing Society Ltd & ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4021 OF 2010 I. N. Pradhan .... Petitioner Versus Shrikumar Co.op. Housing Society Ltd & ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4022 OF 2010 Krishna Rajan .... Petitioner Versus Shrikumar Co.op. Housing Society Ltd & ors ...Respondents WITH 3 wp4015of10.sxw WRIT PETITION NO.4023 OF 2010 S M. Rangnekar .... Petitioner Versus Shrikumar Co.op. Housing Society Ltd & ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4027 OF 2010 Z. A. A. Khan .... Petitioner Versus Shrikumar Co.op. Housing Society Ltd & ors ...Respondents Mr. L. H. Patil, a/w Mr. Prasad Kulkarni i/b P.S. Dani, for the petitioners.. Mr. Mohan Pungalia, a/w Neel Pongalia, for Respondent No.1. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for respondent nos 2 to 4. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 16th JULY, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pungalia, learned counsel for respondent No..1 Society and Mr. Patane, learned AGP for the respondent Nos 2 to 4. 2. The petitioners in all the petitions, initially were the members of Respondent No.1 Shrikumar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Respondent No.1 Society was bifurcated and new Society namely Ekta Co-Operative Housing Society was registered by 4 wp4015of10.sxw the Assistant Registrar. Respondent No.1, challenged the order of bifurcation, initially by filing an appeal and thereafter by filing revision. However, both the appeal and revision came to be dismissed. Respondent Society thereafter preferred Writ Petition no 4426 of 2005 in this Court and this Court by an order dated 8th December, 2005 granted stay to the order of bifurcation. The said Ekta Co-operative society thereafter preferred Letters Patel Appeal. But LPA was dismissed. 3. The Petitioners claim to be the members of said bifurcated society. Respondent No.1 society thereafter claimed bill from the petitioner in each of the above writ petition. Bills were not paid, therefore proceeding u/s 101 of Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960, (for short called as ‘the Act”) was initiated. In this proceedings individual recovery certificates were also issued against the petitioners. Respondent No.1 Society thereafter proceeded to execute the recovery certificate and individual flats of the petitioners came to be attached and proposed to be auctioned for recovery of the arrears of the maintenance. 4. It is also relevant to mention that new society namely Ekta Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, filed Revision u/s 154 of the Act before Divisional Joint Registrar and the said revision is pending. Ekta Co-operative Society asked for stay to recovery certificate as well as attachment proceeding and auction of individual flats of the 5 wp4015of10.sxw petitioners, however, Revisional Authority refused to grant the same on the ground of non compliance of the provisions of sub section 2 of section 154 of the Act. 5. The Petitioners, thereafter rushed to this Court and filed aforesaid individual writ petitions. The said petitions came up for hearing before this Court (Coram: R.C. Chavan, J) on 6.5.2010 and this Court after hearing respective counsel, directed the authorities of respondent No.1 Society to proceed further with the auction, but shall not finalize the bids without the leave of the Court, subject to petitioner’s depositing the entire amount due as per certificate by 12th May,2010. 6. The petitioners in each of the petition in pursuant to this order has deposited the amount due as per certificate. Mr. Pungalia, learned counsel for the society, however, submitted that the exact amounts due under certificate, are not deposited and same are short. Since there is stay to the bifurcation, new Society namely Eka Co Operative Housing Society, could not have preferred revision against recovery certificates against individual petitioners. The petitioners in each of the petition, in my view, are entitled to challenge the recovery certificate, by filing revision proceeding u/s 154 of the Co- operative Societies Act. Mr. Patil, learned counsel, for the petitioners submit that the petitioners in each of the petition, are ready and willing to file revision u/s 154 of the Co Operative Societies Act, 6 wp4015of10.sxw challenging the certificate. He further submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner in each of the petition has deposited the amount due in certificate, there is no question of maintainability of said revision. Mr. Pungalia, in this regard submitted that he will not take any objection about maintainability of said revision provided 50% amount deposited by the petitioner in each of the petition is allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent No.l. 7. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I dispose of the above Writ Petitions by passing the following order. ORDER. I) The petitioner in each of the petition is at liberty to file Reivision before the Revisional Authority challenging the certificate dated 26.8.2008, alongwith application for condonation of delay. The respondent No.1 shall not object the same on the ground of limitation. II) The maintainability of the revision shall not be questioned on the ground of non compliance of provisions of sub section 2 of section 154 of the Act and the Revisional Authority shall decide the same on its own merit independently by giving opportunity to both sides. III) Respondent No.1 is allowed to withdraw 50% 7 wp4015of10.sxw amount deposited by the petitioner in each of the petition in this Court, without furnishing any surety. Rest of the 50% amount so deposited shall be invested in the nationalized bank, initially for a period of six months and it be renewed from time to time if necessary. IV) The withdrawal of the amounts by respondent No.1 in pursuant to above clause as well as amount directed to be deposited shall be subject to the final order in the Writ petition No.4426 of 2005. V) If the petitioner in each of the petition fail to file revision as stated above u/s 154 of the Act, within a period of four weeks, remaining 50% amount which is directed to be invested in the nationalized bank, shall be refunded to the respondent No.1. VI) All the petitions are disposed of accordingly. (R. V. MORE, J.)