1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3748 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. B.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.G.P. for Respondent no. 1 - State. Mr. A.D.Shinde, Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 and 3. .......................... [ CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. ] DATE : 04/09/2009. PER COURT : 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the notice dated 3/11/2008 for paper attachment issued by Special Recovery Officer and Sell Officer. 2. It appears that respondent no. 2 issued Certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘ the Act ’ ) 2 against the petitioner as back as on 10/5/2006. In pursuance to the issuance of the said Certificate, it appears that there is order of attachment on 3/11/2008 issued by respondent no. 2, Special Recovery Officer and Sell Officer. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the recovery certificate, which is issued, is without hearing the present petitioner. The respondents are not disclosing amount which is to be recovered from the petitioner. The learned counsel invited my attention to the grounds in petition from para (i) to (ix) and submitted that if the certificate is issued without hearing the petitioner, then this matter requires consideration. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and submitted that the petitioner was duly served. Notice was served on him. In pursuance to the notice, he appeared before the Assistant Registrar and he made statement that he is ready to pay the amount. He invited my attention to the 3 contentions raised by respondent no. 1 in affidavit in reply and submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he was not heard before issuing certificate, is required to be rejected. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no. 1 – State and on perusal of the affidavit in reply filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3, it appears that the Petitioner was heard before granting Recovery Certificate against the petitioner. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was not heard. 6. Apart from above, there is remedy available under Section 154 of the Act for filing Revision if the petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Act. On careful perusal of the prayers in the petition, it appears that the petitioner in his petition has not challenged the certificate but the subsequent attachment order issued on the basis of the recovery certificate. 4 7. For all these reasons, I do not find any substance in the Writ Petition. Writ Petition is dismissed. [ S.S.SHINDE ] JUDGE knp/WP3748.09