WP2557-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2557 OF 2010 M/s.Vilas Transport Company .. Petitioner Versus The Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Sanjay Jain i/by T.N.Tripathi & Co for the petitioner. Mr.N.P.Pandit, A.G.P for respondent No.4. Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Sr.Counsel with Mr.H.Toor, Mr.S.B.Pawar i/by Shubhash Bane for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19th January 2011. P.C.: . Heard parties. Rule. Taken up for hearing forthwith. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in a Revision Application No.249 of 2010. 2 The Divisional Joint Registrar by order dated 4th November 2010 has dismissed the revision application preferred by the petitioner. 3 The revision application is decided by a cryptic order in the following WP2557-10 2 terms: “Heard both learned advocates/parties and perused the written admission along with relevant exhibits filed by the rival parties, the impugned order dated 15/9/2010 of Hon’ble High Court, I observed that, 1. The respondent No.2 has power u/s 156 of the M.C.S Act 1960 as Special Recovery and Sales Officer from 29/04/2009 to 30/04/2011 by order of Hon’ble Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar dated 29/04/2009 and 01/04/2010 of Maharashtra State. The Respondent No.2 can act as Special Recovery and Sales Officer. The Applicant did not produce evidence for their contention that rate of interest on the principle amount as shown in Recovery Certificate from 01/01/2002 should be between 10.75% to 12.50% changing year wise as per direction of Reserve Bank of India. The respondent No.2 demanded arrears on flat 22% interest per year. The Reserve Bank of India forcing banks to charge interest as their direction for such loans is not produced before me. I am convinced that this Revision Application should be dismissed. Hence, I pass the following order: O R D E R Revision Application is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.” 4 Mr.Jain appearing on behalf of the petitioner-original applicant submits that the revisional order is running into seven pages and from page Nos.1 to 6 the revisional authority has recorded the rival contentions. However, no reasons are assigned by the Divisional Joint Registrar while concurring with the order of the Special Recovery Officer dated 25th June 2010. WP2557-10 3 5 He submits that the perfunctory manner in which a serious proceedings has been dealt with by the Divisional Joint Registrar demonstrates that he has failed to abide by this Court’s order dated 15th September 2010 in Writ Petition No.1918 of 2010. 6 Mr.Chinoy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd which is the 1st respondent to the revision application and the contesting respondent No.1 in this petition as well, found it difficult to support this order. 7 In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on correctness of the rival contentions, interest of justice would be served if the following order is made:- O R D E R (a) The order dated 4th November 2010 in Revision Application No. 249 of 2010 is quashed and set aside. (b) The revision application is restored to the file of the Divisional Joint Registrar but it shall not be assigned to Shri.Sandeep Deshmukh WP2557-10 4 who has dealt with the matter earlier and whose order is impugned in this petition and quashed and set aside. The matter will now be heard by a Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Konkan Division and both sides agree that they will submit to his jurisdiction and not raise any plea with regard to lack of jurisdiction on his part. (c) The Divisional Joint Registrar shall decide the revision application afresh and on merits so also in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations and findings in the order dated 4th November 2010. (d) The Divisional Joint Registrar, Konkan Division shall decide the matter within a period of two months from the date of first appearance of the parties. All the parties agree to appear before the said Divisional Joint Registrar on Thursday 3rd February 2011 at 3.00 p.m. (e) All contentions of both sides on merits are expressly kept open and it is clarified that this Court has not rendered any opinion thereon. . Mr.Chinoy appearing on behalf of 1st respondent on instructions makes a WP2557-10 5 statement that the 1st respondent-bank will not proceed to dispose of the immovable property, namely, Flat No.101 in “Sukhada” building, Sir Poochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 until the revision application is heard and disposed off. . Writ petition is disposed of in above terms. No orders as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)