(1) WP 8452.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8452 OF 2009 1. Sow. Seema Ramesh Bhole 2. Suresh S/o Damu Bhole PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.B. Jadhav, Advocate h/f. Mr. J.R. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent- State. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 12TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By this Petition, the petitioners have challenged the recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "The said Act"). 2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and learned Additional Government Pleader. 3. By order dated 7.10.2010, the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs.25 Lakhs directly in the (2) WP 8452.2009 bank account i.e. with the respondent nos. 2 and 3. That order is not still complied with and therefore, the ad-interim stay has been vacated. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that they have approached the Co-operative Court by filing a dispute under section 91 of the said Act and the interim stay has been granted by the competent Court and as such the recovery certificate is rendered in-executable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to certain observations in "Basveshwar Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Jayant Shivpal Banchhode (2009(4) Bom.C.R. 504)". The Division Bench held that the Co-operative Court has the power to hear and decide the stay application till the decision of the main proceedings before it in relation to section 91 of the Act and also while dealing with the proceedings under section 101 of the Act. It is observed that the Co-operative Court is required to exercise the statutory powers conferred on it under section 91, while the Registrar is exercising the powers under section 101 of the Act (3) WP 8452.2009 and such powers fall in different jurisdiction. Needless to say both the authorities have parallel jurisdiction. A Single Bench of this Court in "Dilip S/o Devaji Yenorkar Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur and others (2009(5) Mh.L.J. 165)" held that when a particular forum is provided that remedy must be availed. It is observed that if such restraint has not been observed, the High Court will be flooded with litigation and the very purpose of creating alternate forum will be defeated. 6. In the instant matter, alternate efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners by way of revision under section 154 of the said Act. They have not availed such remedy. They may avail such remedy if it is found just and proper for them. Instead of availing such remedy, they have filed dispute under section 91 of the said Act. It goes without saying that the proceedings of the recovery certificate would be subject to the final adjudication of the dispute by the Co-operative Court. It is for the Co-operative Court to consider (4) WP 8452.2009 whether effect of the recovery certificate is to be stayed or that the stay already granted is to be vacated. The Co-operative Court to decide the issue on merits thereof. However, in view of the fact that the orders of this Court are not being complied with by the petitioners and that alternate efficacious remedy is available to them, the present Petition is dismissed. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp