-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7772 OF 2009 with WRIT PETITION NO. 7773 OF 2009 with WRIT PETITION NO. 7774 OF 2009 FCI Chaturtha Shreni Karmachari Sahakari Pat Snastha Maryadit Manmad. ..Petitioner. Versus Rupee Co-op. Bank Ltd and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Anilkumar Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K. V. Tembe, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for respondent nos. 5 to 7. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : April 16, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Anilkumar Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. K. V. Tembe, learned Advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr. R. M. Patne, learned AGP for respondent nos. 5 to 7. The facts and parties to all the aforesaid petitions being same, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. The first respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 5 under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for grant of recovery certificate. Respondent No. 7 – Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, by his order dated 28th May 2005 -: 2 :- rejected respondent no.1’s application on the ground that the claim is not simple money claim. Respondent no.1 was however given liberty to file dispute in appropriate Court for recovery of amount against petitioner and respondent nos.2 to 5. This order was challenged by filing revision application before respondent no.6 Divisional Joint Registrar. By the order dated 11th December 2007, which is impugned in this petition, the Divisional Joint Registrar allowed the appeal of respondent no.1 thereby the order passed by Respondent no.7 - the Assistant Registrar was quashed and set aside with further direction to respondent no.1 to file fresh application and respondent no.7 – Assistant Registrar was directed to decide the same on merits. 3. Mr. Anilkumar Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not member of respondent no.1. He further disputed the advancement of loan by respondent no.1 to the petitioner. He submitted that remedy under section 101 of the said Act being summary in nature it would be appropriate to respondent no.1, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to approach the Co-operative Court invoking the provisions of section 91 of the said Act. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decisions of this Court in the matter of (i) Vasundhara v/s RBS Bank Ltd [2003(4) Mh.L.J.] and (ii) Vasant Jobanputra v/s. Bank of India Staff Sampada Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd [2005(1) BCR 86]. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, on the -: 3 :- contrary, supported the impugned order. He asserted that petitioner is member of respondent no.1 society. He also asserted that respondent no.1 advanced loan to petitioner. He submitted that respondent no.1 cannot be compelled to approach the Co-operative Court by way of dispute under section 91 of the said Act when the remedy under section 101 of the said Act can be availed of. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is specific assertion of respondent no.1 that the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 5 are the members and respondent no.1-bank has advanced loan to them. Respondent no.7 rejected respondent no.1’s claim under section 101 only on the ground that respondent no.1’s claim is not a simple money claim. Section 101 of the said Act does not make any distinction between the simple money claim and complicated money claim. Respondent no.1 Bank answers the description of the co-operative society mentioned in section 101 of the said Act. Be that as it may, while considering the grant of certificate under section 101 of the said Act, concerned Authority is bound to follow the principles of natural justice and as such the petitioner is entitled for personal hearing before respondent no.7. The petitioner can always satisfy the Assistant Registrar that the petitioner is not the member of respondent no.1- society and that money which is claimed by respondent no.1 never reached to them. Merely because the advancement of loan is disputed by the petitioner, respondent no.1 cannot be compelled to approach the Co-operative Court -: 4 :- under section 91 of the said Act. 6. Insofar as the decision in the matter of Vasant Jobanputra v/s. Bank of India Staff Sampada Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd [2005(1) BCR 86] relied upon by Mr. Anilkumar Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, it is held by the learned Single Judge that proceedings under section 101 of the said Act are quasi judicial in nature, that does not mean the Registrar is not expected to engage in process of long drawn reasoning or analysis of each aspect or argument. It is enough if authority broadly considers main issue as to whether concerned member is in arrears and to what extent and whether claim of arrears of society is substantiated from contemporaneous record. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down in this judgment. The reliance put up by the petitioner on this judgment to support his contention that respondent no.1 should follow under section 91 of the said Act is misconceived. So far as the judgment of Division Bench in Vasundhara v/s RBS Bank Ltd [2003(4) Mh.L.J.] is concerned, it was held that the certificate under section 101 of the said Act cannot be challenged under section 91 of the said Act. This judgment does not support the petitioner’s contention that respondent no.1 should file dispute under section 91 of the said Act. Taking overall view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the petitions. In the result, Petitions are dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)