1 11.wp5946.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5946 OF 2011 Sagar Darshan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. The Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & ors. ....Respondent. Mr. R.V. Govilkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. I.K. Tripath, a/w. Mr. Patole, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- DECEMBER 12, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. Mr. Rayrikar, learned AGP appears for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. I.K. Tripathi appears for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 2. On 26 August, 2011 following order was passed by A.S. Oka, J : 2 11.wp5946.11 “ Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the first order passed by the Deputy Registrar on an application for issuing recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, 1960. His submission is that though a remedy under Section 154 of the said Act is available, looking to the manner in which the order has been passed by the Deputy Registrar, this Court will have to lay down guidelines/- directions determining the manner in which the Applications under Section 101 of the said Act will have to be dealt with. Prima facie, it appears from the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar that he was under an impression that as there was a dispute between the contesting parties as regards the amount payable, he was powerless to grant certificate under Section 101 of the said Act. In the facts of the case, a Revision Application cannot be said to be an efficacious remedy. 2. Issue notice to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for final disposal at the stage of admission, returnable on 12th October, 2011. Hamdast allowed. Private service is also permitted.” 3. Mr. Tripathi submits that the Society has not complied with Rule 86A of the M.C.S. Rules, 1961 and further submits that there is no provision for charging interest. On the other hand, Mr. Govilkar, relies on Bye-Law No. 72 of the Bye-Laws of the Petitioner Society to contend that interest can be charged. 4. Perusal of the reasons given by the Deputy Registrar shows that the 3 11.wp5946.11 only reason which is given for rejecting the Application under Section 101 of the Cooperative Societies Act is that there is no consensus between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. This reason is completely unsustainable. Even if there is no consensus, it was for the Deputy Registrar to consider the rival contentions of the parties and thereafter pass appropriate orders, which has not been done. Hence on this ground alone, Writ Petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). Application No. 323 of 2011 is restored to the file of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, G/S Ward, Mumbai with a direction to rehear the parties. If according to the Deputy Registrar, there are any procedural defects in the Application under Section 101 of the Act, such defects shall be brought to the notice of the Applicant/ Petitioner Society and the Society should be given opportunity to rectify the defects (if any). 5. All the contentions of both the parties are kept open in all respects and the Deputy Registrar shall hear and decide the Application afresh in accordance with law on or before 30th June, 2012. Both the parties will be free to lead evidence, oral and documentary. Such evidence shall be permitted. 4 11.wp5946.11 6. Rule is partly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)