1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5376/2009. Kanhaiya Kishore Aswani … versus … Mah. State Housing Finance Corp. and another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 26, 2010. Heard Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri S.T. Dhurwey, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.2. Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that the RRC came to be issued without any opportunity to petitioner and hence after realizing the mistake on 16.04.2009, the said RRC was recalled. However, while considering the matter further, the Authority found that it has no jurisdiction to recall such RRC and petitioner should approach under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. In this background he has further pointed out that the original loan borrowed was of Rs. 1,50,000/- and towards its recovery the policy of Rs. 1,46,000/- has already been appropriated. He states that only to show his bonafides the petitioner has deposited amount of Rs. 50,000/- on one count and then Rs. 23,000/-. 2 According to him there are other legal heirs of deceased borrower who are entitled to shoulder the loan liability in equal proportion. He has relied upon the judgment reported at 2007 [4] Mh.L.J. 333 (Khushal Narayanrao Mundhe .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others) to urge that RRC issued in breach of principles of natural justice is unsustainable. Shri Dhurwey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 opposes the petition. He states that the RRC itself mentions that after repeated opportunities to petitioner, the Authority has issued the certificate. He contends that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is therefore has no application. Learned A.G.P. appears for respondent no.2 and adopts the arguments advanced by Shri Dhurwey. The record shows that respondent no.2 Authority was itself satisfied that RRC was not issued in accordance with the law, therefore, it accepted the application made by the petitioner to it and recalled the RRC on 16.04.2009. However, after hearing respective parties, it has held that the right course for petitioner would be to file revision under Section 154 of the Act. In peculiar facts pointed out by Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel and in view of the dispute, at this stage I am inclined to permit the petitioner to have one opportunity to defend him, however, this is subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- with that Authority within a period of four weeks from today. If the amount is so deposited, the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2009 delivered by respondent no.2 and also RRC in execution shall stand recalled and petitioner shall be given necessary opportunity of hearing by respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 shall 3 thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Respondent no.2 is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court as per orders dated 11.12.2009 in the matter. The said amount shall be in addition to amount of Rs. 50,000/- directed to be deposited by this court. The entitlement to total amount of Rs. 1 lakh shall be decided at the time of final adjudication by respondent no.2. Writ Petition is thus allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.