1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.3212 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3213 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3214 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3215 OF 2008 Baldev S. Lulla and another ..Petitioners. Vs. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. A.S. Desai with MR. Raja Ghadge for the Petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Shah with Ms. Meenakshi Mhaparkar i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co. for Respondent NO.2. Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP for Respondents 12 and 13. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 6th May, 2008. P.C. : Mentioned. Not on Board. On the request of the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and by consent taken up on Board for admission and disposal. 2. The Petitions impugn the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar declining to admit the revision application filed under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 2 1960 against a recovery certificate issued under Section 101 on the ground that the Petitioner has not deposited 50% of the amount of recoverable dues in terms of sub-section (2A) of Section 154. The requirement under Section 154(2A) is mandatory. The legislature has provided that no application for revision shall be entertained against a recovery certificate issued by the Registrar under Section 101 unless the applicant deposits 50% of the total recoverable dues. The Petitioner had admittedly filed an earlier writ petition (Writ Petition 3383 of 2006) which was disposed of by the Division Bench on 7th June, 2006. The Division Bench permitted the Petitioner to withdraw the Petition with liberty to approach the Registrar under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. The Petitioner moved an application for setting aside the recovery certificate on the ground that service had not been effected on the Petitioner. Significantly, the averments contained in the earlier petition are to the contrary because in paragraph 5 of the earlier petition, the following averment has been made : “Petitioners state and submit that as the negotiations were going on and upon the assurance of the Res no.2 bank that recovery proceeding would not be pursued till 3 the negotiations were on the petitioners were precluded on the basis of assurances of the Res no.2 bank from effectively defending the recovery proceeding.” This averment clearly shows that the Petitioner was aware of the proceedings instituted under Section 101. That apart in view of the mandatory requirement of Section 154 (2A), this Court would not be justified in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 in passing an order contrary to the plain intendment of the legislative provision. There is no merit in the Petitions which are accordingly dismissed. *****