1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8098 OF 2010 Balaprasad s/o Brijlalji Mundada, age: 57 years, Occ: Business, Prop. Shrikant Traders, R/o Nava Mondha, Ambejogai, Tq.Ambejogai, Disrict Beed. Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Co-operation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2 The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, (Deputation, Marathwada Urban Bank Co-operative Association, Urban Bank Bhavan, Plot No.27, Vikaspuri, Near Chinar Garden, Padegaon, Aurangabad. 3 The Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Pune, Branch at Ambejogai, District Beed, through its Branch Manager. 4 The Special Recovery Officer, The Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., 1444, Sawarkar Peth, Thorale Bajirao Road, Pune. 2 5 Narhari s/o Rambhau Lokhande, age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o Nava Mondha, Ambejogai, Tq.Ambejogai, District Beed. 6 Ishwar s/o Brijlal Mundada, age: 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o Nava Mondha, Ambejogai, Taluka Ambejogai, Dist.Beed. Respondents Mr.R.T.Nagargoje, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 29 th September, 2010. P.C.: 1 A certificate regarding recovery of amount of Rs. 36,37,939/- is stated to have been issued against the petitioner by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad. The withdrawal of amount from the Bank by the petitioner is not disputed. It is also not disputed that petitioner owes the amount to the Bank. However, the only dispute, that has been raised in the petition, is as regards non observance of procedure in issuing the recovery certificate by the Assistant Registrar. It is stated that the Assistant Registrar has not observed the procedure in respect of issuance of the recovery certificate. 2 True that the Assistant Registrar has not followed the procedure in issuing the recovery certificate, as the order passed, 3 is not a speaking order. The petitioner was asked as to whether he is prepared to deposit some amount out of the recoverable amount payable to the bank. Petitioner, however, has declined to make deposit of any sum in the proceedings. 3 Taking into consideration that huge amount of more than Rs.36 lacs is admittedly recoverable from the petitioner and further that the petitioner is not desirous of showing his bona fides in depositing any amount in this Court, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, no interference is required to be caused in the petition. Petition is devoid of substance. 4 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp809810