1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4905 OF 2009 Jaiprakash Purushottam Mungad, Age: 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Paldi, Tq. Dharangaon, District Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus The Jalgaon District Medicine Dealers' Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Jalgaon Through its Manager, and others. .. Respondents ... Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. B.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dilip Bankar Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 28th JULY, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for respondent No.2. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the 2 Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the recovery certificate No.93/2009 issued on 29-05-2009 by respondent No. 2 Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Respondent No. 2 issued certificate under Section 101 of the said Act for a sum of Rs.1,45,170/- with interest @19% p. a. from 01-03-2009. 3. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 states that alternative remedy is available under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and therefore, Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that though alternative remedy is available, Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is also maintainable in view of the judgment in the matter of 3 Ganeshkumar Makhanlal Chandak and another vs. Nagpur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., and another, reported in 2005(3) Bom. C.R. 925. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly relied on Para 10 of this authority which reads as under. "10. In view of the language of section 101 of the Act pointed out above, the ruling of the Division Bench discussed above will apply with its full vigour even to the inquiries under section 101. Here, it is specifically pleaded by the petitioners in para 4 of their petition as also in ground 1 thereof that respondent No. 2 did not give them any opportunity and in ground No. 2 of the petition, they have stated that respondent No. 2 has issued the Recovery Certificate without any application of mind. It is further pointed out that respondent No. 2 did not hold any inquiry. In such circumstances, it is apparent that the certificate dated 22-06-1992 and the loan recovery notice dated 29-06-1992 at Annexure 4 4 with the petition are issued without holding any proper inquiry by respondent No. 2 and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners." 5. In any case, recently the Apex Court in the matter of Arun B. Khanjire vs. Ichalkaranji Urbhan Co-operative Bank Limited and others, reported in (2009) 2 S.C.C. 187 held that " admittedly section 154(1) of the above Act confers revisionary powers on the State Government and also the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under the Act. It also empowers the State Government or the Registrar to satisfy themselves as to the legality or the propriety of any such decision or order and to modify, annul or reverse the same after giving the person affected thereby an opportunity of being heard either suo motu or on an application." 6. In view of the above mentioned facts, as the alternative remedy under Section 154 of the 5 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is available, this Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/JUL09/wp4905.09