1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7571 OF 2010 Ashwini s/o Arvind Rikhye, Age 36 years, Occ. Business, R/o Papaji Market, Main Road, Chopda, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Ministry of Co-operation, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy to be served on G.P. High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chopda, District Jalgaon. 3. Chopda Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chopda, Ambedkar Chowk, Chopda, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon, through its Special Recovery & Sale Officer. 4. Ravindra s/o Manoharlal Agrawal, Age 43 years, Occ. Service, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Chopda, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon. 5. Prashant s/o Govind Sharma, Age 30 years, Occ. Business, R/o Deshpande Galli, Chopda, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 Shri A.G. Talhar, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri A.S. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No.4 ..... 2 CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 18th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. A certificate of recovery issued at the instance of respondent/ Bank in respect of recovery of amount of Rs. 2,01,723/- along with interest @ 17% p.a. Is subjected to challenge in this petition at the instance of the borrower/ Account holder of the Bank. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner owe certain amount to the Bank and the Bank is entitled to recover amount from the petitioner. In these circumstances, as a pre-condition for entertaining the instant petition, the petitioner is directed to deposit the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the respondent Bank within a period of five weeks from today. 4. On perusal of the certificate issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, it appears that, it is not in consonance with Rule 86-F of the Rules. There are no reasons recorded by the Assistant Registrar as contemplated by Rule 86-F. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Assistant Registrar has not followed the procedure 3 prescribed under Rule 86-D and E of the Rules and as such, the recovery certificate is required to be quashed and set aside. The counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that there is ample material placed on record before the Assistant Registrar to arrive at conclusion that the petitioners herein are defaulters of the Bank and sum of Rs.2,01,723/- along with interest is due. It is also contended that, several dates were prescribed for hearing of the matter and that the Assistant Registrar has followed the procedure prescribed under Rules 86-B and 86-C of the Rules and as such, no interference is called for. 5. As stated above, on perusal of the order issued under section 101 of the Act, it transpired that same is not in consonance with Rule 86-F of the Rules. Admittedly, no reasons are recorded by the Assistant Registrar in support of the order. The matter is, therefore, required to be remitted back to the Assistant Registrar. Both the parties shall have liberty to raise their contentions before the Assistant Registrar and the parties also shall have liberty to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Assistant registrar, after extending opportunity of hearing to both the sides and after receiving evidence that may be tendered by the respective parties, shall proceed to decide the application presented for issuance of recovery certificate by the Bank, in accordance with provisions of law and pass a reasoned order as contemplated by Rule 86-F of the Rules. In the event of failure by the petitioner to deposit the amount as directed, with the respondent Bank, within a period of 4 five weeks from today, the order passed in the instant Writ Petition shall be deemed to have been recalled. The Assistant Registrar shall proceed to decide the application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from today. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M. BORDE JUDGE