1 WP No.8271 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.8271 Of 2009 Renuka Krushak Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Mahur, Taluka Mahur District Nanded Through Chairman Shivling s/o Baliram Taklikar And Another. .. Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. D.J. Choudhari, Advocate, for petitioners. Shri. V.B. Ghatge, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1,4,5 and 6. Shri. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent No.2. Shri. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for respondent Nos.8 and 9. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE 15th NOVEMBER 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1) Heard. 2 WP No.8271 of 2009 2) The petitioner’s contention is that initially the petitioner was availing loan from Marathwada Gramin Bank till the year 1997 for providing facilities to its members. But since the year 1997 the petitioner had started taking loan from Nanded District Central Cooperative Bank. The Central Government and State Government had provided financial assistance to the petitioner-society under Debt Relief Scheme. It is further contended by the petitioner that some amount was received by the Nanded District Central Cooperative Bank under the said scheme. The petitioner filed an application with respondent No.8 and prayed to give details in respect of the transfer and appropriation of the said amount to the account of the petitioner. The said representation was submitted on the basis of a resolution passed by the Managing Committee on 23rd April 2009. Respondent No. 6 - District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nanded had also issued directions to respondent No.8 bank to take appropriate steps. 3) The petitioner now contends that an amount of more than Rs.14 lakhs is to be reimbursed by the respondent No.8 to the petitioner. 3 WP No.8271 of 2009 4) Consequent to the notice, respondent No.6 and respondent Nos.7 to 9 filed respective affidavits-in-reply. Respondents 7 to 9 contended that unless and until respondent No.3-NABARD gives permission for utilization of the balance amount the respondent-bank is unable to utilize the same. 5) In spite of service of notice, none appears for respondent No.3-NABARD. The writ petition is pending since the year 2009 at the admission stage. It would not be appropriate to adjourn hearing of the petition any further in the interest of the parties. 6) In the facts of the case we direct respondent No.8 to seek specific clarification in respect of the scheme and the claim of the petitioner from the responsible authorities within three months from today. The petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl