1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2695 OF 2008 Baburao s/o Umaji Kawale and another ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. N.R. Solunke, advocate for the petitioner Mrs. V. A. Shinde, advocate for respondent 1. Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. D.V. Soman, advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. A.S. Deshpande advocate for respondent No.6 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition is filed with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune U/sec. 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 dated 1.4.2003 in case No.7769/2002-03 to the extent of the petitioners as they are not borrower nor guarantor to the loan disbursed to the respondent No.2 society by respondent No.3 Rupee Co-operative bank Nigadee, Pune, including the impugned attachment order attaching salary of the petitioners vide order No. RCB/Nigdee/SRO/07-08/W-75245/ 674 and 675 EX-M-M-1 dated 13.2.2008 served on N.R.B. Company Pvt. Limited, M.I.D.C. Jalna employer respondent No.6 of the petitioner, to the 2 extent of the petitioner. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the present petitioners filed revision application No. 35 of 2003 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Section 154 of the Societies Act in which the matter was remanded back to the authority for fresh inquiry. The authority again has passed the impugned order at Exh. M page 107 of the compilation dated 13.2.2008. Learned counsel would submit that the Divisional Joint Registrar has already remanded the matter back to the concerned authority and no further inquiry has been held and impugned order dated 13.2.2008 has been passed. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that subsequent order dated 13.2.2008, is required to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel submits that the challenge in the petition in substance is the order of attachment of salary of the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that there is no challenge to the certificate under Section 101 issued by the authority. The challenge is to the order of attachment of salary under Rule 107(2) of the Rules of 1961. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the writ petition may be allowed. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that the impugned order is passed in pursuant to the certificate issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. He 3 invited my attention to the prayer clauses in the petition and submitted that the main prayer in this petition is to quash and set aside the certificate issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and therefore, in view of the remedy of Revision available under section 154 of the Societies Act, this petition may not be entertained. He invited my attention to the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Greater Bombay Co-op. Bank Vs. Dhillon P. Shah, reported in 2004 (3) Bom. C.R. 229. 4 On careful perusal of the provisions of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jatinder Singh & Anr. (Minor through mother) Vs. Mehar Singh and Ors. reported in 2009 (1) All M.R. 495, the Divisional Joint Registrar should not have entertained the revision application No. 35 of 2003 unless provisions under sub section (2-A) of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act were complied with. Therefore, the order which was passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar Aurangabad in Revision No. 35 of 2003 was not in compliance with the provisions of sub-section (2-A) of Section 154. In the said revision application prayer was for setting aside recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. The order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar was without compliance of the Section 2-A of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, cannot be relied 4 upon. However, since the said order is not under challenge there is no question of further adjudication on that issue. So far as the order at Exh. M at page 107 dated 13.2.2008, passed by the Special Recovery Officer, can be challenged in the revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. No any extra reasons are shown to bypass the remedy available under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and therefore, in view of the remedy available under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, this petition is dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for continuation of stay, which is already granted for further period of 15 days. It is not possible to accept the prayer, hence, prayer is rejected. *****