1 WP 4892.2010 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4892 OF 2010 Needal Roller Bearings Employees Co Op Credit Society Ltd, M.I.D.C. Jalna Through its Chairman .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Co-operation ;and Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Assistant Registrar Co Operative Societies (perseva), Pune 3. Rupee Co Operative Bank Ltd Nigdi, Pune Through its Manager 4. Baburao Umaji Kawale Age : 49 Yrs., Occ. Pvt.service, R/o : Golapangri, Tq. & Dist Jalna 5. Thakaji Gouba Tamkhane Age : 46 Yrs., Occ. Pvt.service, Ex-employee of N.R.B., MIDC, Jalna, Tq. & Dist Jalna 6. Vijay Mahadeo Mitkari Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : Rupmandir, Textoriam , Mumbai - Pune Road, Nigdi, 2 WP 4892.2010 - ( J ) Pune. 7. Siddhanath Yeshwant Mitkari Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : Rupmandir, Textoriam, Mumbai - Pune Road, Nigdi, Pune. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. K.J.Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. D.V.Soman, Advocate for Resp. No. 3 Mr. N.R.Salunke, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 4 & 5. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/06/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The petitioner assails the Order dated 28/4/2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies rejecting his application. 4. The recovery certificate was issued in favour of the present respondent no. 3. The Revision was preferred by the present respondent nos. 4 and 5. The revisional authority remitted the matter. The Division 3 WP 4892.2010 - ( J ) Bench of this court allowed the L.P.A. No. 228 of 2009 filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5 observing that the revisional authority has quashed and set aside the recovery certificate and the matter was remitted for de-novo enquiry. In the said L.P.A. directions were given to afford opportunity to the present respondent nos. 4 and 5 and respondent-bank in regard to the issuance of the certificate U/s 101 of the Co-operative Societies Act [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ]. Thereafter, the present petitioner had moved an application for giving them opportunity of hearing. The same is rejected vide the impugned order. 5. Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the recovery certificate is quashed and set aside, then in that circumstance, the whole recovery certificate is quashed and the enquiry is to be conducted afresh. In such circumstances, the present petitioner had every right to contest. It was an error on the part of the Assistant Registrar to reject the certificate. The Assistant Registrar dealt with the application as if it is an application for adding the petitioner as a party. 6. Mr. Soman, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Mr. N.R.Salunke, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and 4 WP 4892.2010 - ( J ) supported the impugned order contending that the L.P.A. was filed by the present respondent nos. 4 and 5 and in the order also it was specifically observed that the appellants and the respondent-bank shall have opportunity of hearing. The present petitioner had never challenged the recovery certificate and so they do not have any right now to agitate against the same. According to the learned counsel, the present petitioner was sleeping over his rights and now can not be given any such liberty. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in the L.P.A. No. 220 of 2009 had observed that the revisional authority had quashed and set aside the recovery certificate issued and that the matter was remitted for de-novo enquiry meaning thereby that the enquiry was to be conducted afresh from the start. When the matter is remitted for de-novo enquiry, it is implicit in the order that the enquiry has to be conducted afresh from the very start. If the enquiry is to be started afresh, then each and every party has liberty to put-forth his case. The appellants had preferred L.P.A., as such the Division Bench of this Court had observed that the appellants should be given an opportunity but when the recovery certificate itself is set aside and de-novo enquiry is ordered, then in such circumstances, each and every party to the proceeding will have the right to put-forth his case. 5 WP 4892.2010 - ( J ) 8. It is not disputed that the present petitioner was original opponent in the proceeding U/s 101 of the said Act. In such circumstances, the petitioner inherently had right to put-forth his case once de-novo enquiry is ordered. 9. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Assistant Registrar shall give opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner shall file Written Statement within 15 days from today and the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies shall after following procedure as laid down under Rule 86-A to 86-F of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of six ( 6 ) months today. 10. It is submitted that the matter is pending before the Assistant Registrar. In view of the fact that the matter is pending before the Assistant Registrar, no question arises of issuing fresh notices. 11. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 4892.2010 - ( J ) 6 WP 4892.2010 - ( J )