(1) WP 8749.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8749 OF 2010 Swatantrya Sainik Bhila Motiram Mahajan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Shirpur and anr. Petitioners VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. Respondents ..... Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. N.N. Desale, Advocate for the respondent no.4 Mr. P.M. Shah, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. S.P. Shah, Advocate for the respondent no.5 Mr. P.S. Gaikwad, Advocate for the respondent no.6 ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 2. The petitioner no.1 claims amount which was allegedly due from the respondent no.4 i.e. the Co- operative Sugar Factory by filing a dispute. The award was rendered in favour of the petitioner no.1. In the proceedings for recovery, the petitioner no.2 was appointed as the Recovery Officer by the Federation. The petitioner no.2 proceeded to attach (2) WP 8749.2010 three tanks of molasses which were in the premises of the sugar factory. Though the attachment was effected yet the sugar factory issued tender for the purpose of sale of the molasses and, therefore, the petitioner no.1 objected such kind of sale of molasses by the sugar factory and Objection Petition was filed before the Deputy Registrar of the Co- operative Societies. The Deputy Registrar was also approached by the respondent no.5-District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. The case of the respondent no.5-Co-operative Bank was that the molasses was pledged with the bank and, therefore, it had right over the said property for recovery of the loan advanced to the Co-operative Sugar Factory. Instead of deciding the dispute between the petitioner no.1- Patsanstha and Co-operative Bank, in sofar as the priority claim is concerned, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies directed that the sale of the molasses shall be effected and the amount shall be credited and thereafter disbursed to the extent of 50% to the petitioner no.1 and to the extent of 50% to the respondent no.5. This order was challenged by the respondent no.5 before the Joint Registrar of the (3) WP 8749.2010 Co-operative Society. By the impugned order, the Joint Registrar allowed the revision application no. 61 of 2010 and was pleased to set aside the order issued by the District Deputy Registrar on the ground that it was without jurisdiction. 3. It is undisputed that the priority right for recovery of the amount of due from the sugar factory advanced by the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.5 respectively, is yet to be adjudicated by the competent authority. The respondent no.5 has submitted its representation to the petitioner no.2. The Petition was filed for setting aside the order rendered in the revision application no.61 of 2010. The petitioners also sought direction to the effect that the auction of the molasses conducted by the respondent no.4-sugar factory was illegal. 4. There cannot be any duality of the opinion that the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society, whereby he directed disbursement of the 50% of the amount to the petitioner no.1 and 50% amount to the respondent no. 5, out of the sale proceeds of the molasses is (4) WP 8749.2010 without any jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.9.2010 rendered in revision application no. 61 of 2010 need not be interferred with. Since the stock of the molasses is already sold and the amount is credited in this Court, it would be appropriate to invest the amount in fixed deposit with any nationalized bank and leave granted to the contesting parties to put forth their claims for disbursement before the competent authority. The petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.5 may put forth such claims before the petitioner no.1 or the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, as the case may be, for the adjudication in regard to the priority of the charge over the amount so deposited after sale of the molasses. The competent authority shall hear both the contesting parties as well as the sugar factory i.e. the respondent no.4 and thereafter shall adjudicate the priority of the claims in accordance with the law. All the questions, including the question pertaining to the legality and competency of the concerned Co-operative Court to decide the dispute, the first charge of the petitioner no.1 or the respondent no.5, the legality (5) WP 8749.2010 of the recovery proceedings etc. are kept open. No opinion is expressed on merits on any of the disputed questions involved in the Petition. 5. In the result, the Petition is disposed of with direction that the amount so deposited in this Court shall be invested in any nationalized bank in fixed deposit, in the name of the Registrar of this Court for a period of six (6) months and within period of six months the dispute regarding the priorities of the claims as per the claims put forth by the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.5 shall be adjudicated by the competent authority. No costs. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp