1 wp4734.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION No. 4734 OF 2011 Rameshchandra Pralhad Agarwal, Age : 60 years, Occ : Business and Proprietor of Kishorilal Babulal Kirana Marchant, Bhusar Lane, Latur, Dist. Latur ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- 1. Shegaon Shri Agrasen Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Shegaon, Through Branch Manager, Latur, Papruniya Bhavan, Cloth Lane, Latur, Dist. Latur. 2. The Special Recovery Officer, Shegaon Shri Agrasen Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana. 3. The Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Latur, Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENTS ...... Shri A.V. Indrale Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.K. Goyanka, advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri. K.B. Choudhary, Addl.G.P. for respondent no.3. ...... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 5th September, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of 2 wp4734.11 the parties, this Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The present respondent no.1 had filed the proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 allowed the said application filed by respondent no.1. Aggrieved thereby, the present Petition is filed. 3. Shri A.V. Indrale Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, respondent no.3 had given the next date as 16th August, 2010 but had issued the recovery certificate only on 10th August, 2010. After Advocate for the petitioner had signed, thereafter the changes were made in the Roznama. The learned counsel contends that he had filed an application for return of the said application on the ground that the disputed questions of fact are involved, which would require investigation. Without considering the same, respondent no.3 has issued the said recovery certificate. The learned counsel contends that respondent no.3 has not followed the procedure as per Rule 86A to 86G of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. 4. Shri Goyanka, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 strongly opposes the Petition and submits that the 3 wp4734.11 ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner. The proceedings would show the time sought by the petitioner. Even after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner, he did not file Written Statement. As such respondent no.3 has rightly proceeded and issued the recovery certificate. When no Written Say was filed, no question arise further for following the procedure laid down in Rule 86A to 86G of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. The learned counsel contends that the huge amount of Rs. 20 lacs is outstanding against the petitioner therefore, no latitude can be given to the petitioner. Even if, the said recovery certificate is required to be challenged before the Revisional Authority, the petitioner is required to deposit 50% as such. At any circumstances, the petitioner needs to be directed to deposit at least 50% of the amount. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the proceedings and order. No doubt on the Roznama dated 09.08.2010, there is some overwriting. It appears that the petitioner has not filed his written say. He had filed an application for return of the said proceedings on the ground that the disputed questions of fact are involved that he has also filed the dispute under Section 91. The said application was not decided. The respondent no.3 is required to decide the same by 4 wp4734.11 giving reasons. It is within the competence of respondent no.3 to decide the said application on its own merits. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, I feel that the petitioner is required to be given an opportunity to defend the case. 6. In the light of above, without entering into the other merits of the matter, I quash and set aside the impugned order on condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 4 Lacs with respondent no.1 within a period of four weeks from today. The respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the application filed by respondent no.1 under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties. The parties shall appear before respondent no.3 on 3rd October, 2011. The Authority shall decide the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. 7. In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of Rs. 4 Lacs as directed supra with respondent no.1, the Writ Petition would stand dismissed. It is only if the petitioner deposits Rs. 4 Lacs then respondent no.3 shall decide the said proceedings afresh. 5 wp4734.11 8. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms, however, with no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE ga s/wp 4734.11