IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.96 OF 2009 The Best Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. .. Petitioner Vs. The Brihanmumbai Electric Supply Transport & Undertaking and others .. Respondents Mr. A.S. Desai with Mr. R.S. Ghadge for the petitioner. Mr. V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr. D.G. Dhanure and Mr. Sunil Chavan i/by M/s. M.V. Kini & Co. for the respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that they have no objection to the recovery of the loan amount payable to the petitioner-society by its members provided: (i) The petitioner-society furnishes the copies of the agreements entered into between them and their members; (ii) They should pay administrative charges of Rs.200/- per employee per year charged by the respondent-Undertaking from all institutions on whose behalf they recover loan amounts. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, had certain reservations for the amount of Rs.200/- per person per year has not been charged from other institutions. On the query raised by the court, it is informed on behalf of the respondents that that is not correct, as per the instructions given. 3. In the circumstances aforestated, we dispose of this petition with a direction that in the event copies of the agreements are furnished by the petitioner to the respondent-Undertaking and if they agree to the deduction of Rs.200/- per person per year as administrative charges payable to the Undertaking, the Undertaking shall deduct the loan installations as per the terms of the agreement and pay to the petitioner-society without any delay. We make it clear that this order is primarily being passed on the basis of the statement made by the respondents. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent-Undertaking had given an undertaking they they would recover such amount. In view of the statement made by the respondents, it is not that the respondent-Undertaking is not prepared to recover the amount but it has expressed its limitations which we do not find unjustifiable or illegal. In fact, reference can also be made in this regard to Section 49 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 which contemplates compliance to these conditions. However, the charges of Rs.200/- which is being demanded by the Undertaking is not a statutory demand but the demand raised appears to be reasonable as the Undertaking would have to devote manpower for the maintenance of records of recoveries of the loans entailing expenditure. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated on instructions that loans are extended by the petitioner to over 30,000 employees of the Undertaking. In these circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere. Writ petition stands disposed of. 4. After the above order was passed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wishes to withdraw this petition. Dismissed as withdrawn. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.