IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 1101 of 2009 1 Kamlabai w/o Vishwanath Kakde, Aged 55 years,Occupation Agriculture, 2 Ganesh s/o VishwanathKakde, Aged 37 years, Occupation Agriculture, Both resident of Zolegaon, Taluka Vaijapur, District Aurangabad Petitioners V E R S U S 1 The Adharsh Mahila Gramin Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Aurangabad, Through its Manager, 2 The Special Recovery Officer (Maharashtra State Co-operative Department) Both resident of Adharsh Mahila Gramin Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Aurangabad. 31 Shivjyoti Colony, N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad 3 The Deputy Registrar Co-op. Societies, Aurangabad Respondents Mr. R.P. Bhumkar, Advocates for the petitioners Mr. M.R.Chhallani, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for the respondents / State CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 22nd June, 2010 ( 2 ) ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition challenges order dated 24th October, 2005 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad in Case No. 816 of 2005. By this order, the Certificate of Recovery under Section 101 (1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 has been granted for an amount of Rs.1,21,043/-. The petition also challenges the auction notice dated 15th February, 2009, issued by the respondent No. 2, for auction of the agricultural land Gut No. 16, ad-measuring 1 H 1 R, situated at village Zolegaon, Taluka Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. 2. Notice was issued in this matter on 16th February, 2009 and stay to the auction was granted on the condition that the petitioners shall deposit Rs.30,000/- within three weeks. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 30,000/- had been deposited in this Court by the petitioners on 6th March, 2009. The interim order has thereafter been continued. By an order dated 24th March, 2010, the respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.30,000/-, and accordingly, the respondent No.1 has withdrawn the said amount. 3. Shri.M.R. Challani, learned counsel appears for respondents No. 1 and 2, whereas the learned A.G.P. appears for respondent No. 3 / State. The learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The respective learned counsel waives notice for the respondents. ( 3 ) 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an amount of Rs.99,150/- has been paid. However, this is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The order impugned in this petition was passed on 24th October, 2005. The petition appears to have been filed in February, 2009. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that there is an alternate statutory remedy available under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, by way of revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar, challenging the said order. According to him, such a revision is required to be preferred within stipulated time, but the same has not been preferred. He further submits that there is also remedy provided for challenging the auction notice dated 15th February, 2009. The same is not availed. 5. If the contention of petitioners is that they have paid substantial amount, then it is open for them to satisfy the executing Court that the decree to that extent stands satisfied. Apart from this, if they are aggrieved by the orders passed by the authority, which are challenged in this petition, then it is open for them to approach the Court / Forum provided, as an alternate remedy, in accordance with Law. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the orders impugned in this petition. The petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule discharged with the aforesaid liberty. ( R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ) srm/WP/1101/09