1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 54. WP/4638/2010 with CA NO.11287/2010. VAISHALI INDUSTRIES THROUHGH ITS PROPRITORS PRASHANT VISHWANATH ZARE & ANR. V/S THE TALUKA DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO OP. SOCIETIES, JALGAON & OTHERS. WITH WP/4595/2010 WITH CA NO.11291/2010. TEJASWINI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PARTNER PRASHANT ZARE & ORS. V/S THE TALUKA DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO OP SOCIETIES, JALGAON AND OTHERS. WITH WP/4596/2010 TEJASWINI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PARTNER, PRASHANT ZARE AND ORS. V/S THE TALUKA DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JALGAON AND OTHERS. WITH WP/4597/2010 TEJASWINI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, THROUGH ITS PARTNER, SHRIKANT V.ZARE AND ORS. V/S THE TALUKA DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JALGAON AND OTHERS. 2 WITH WP/4605/2010 WITH CA NO. 11290/2010 VAISHALI INDUSTRIES, THROUGH ITS PROPERIETOR, PRASHANT V.ZARE AND ANR v/S THE TALUKA DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,JALGAON AND OTHERS. WITH WP/4636/2010 WITH CA NO.11289/2010. ANJALI METAL CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS PARTNER, PRASHANT V. ZARE AND ANR V/S THE TALUKA DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO OPERTIVE SOCIETIES,JALGAON AND ORS. WITH WP/4637/2010 with CA NO. 11288/2010. ANJALI METAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR – PRASHAN V. ZARE AND ANR V/S THE TALUKA DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO OP. SOCIETIES, JALGAON AND OTHERS. WITH WP/4644/2010 WITH CA NO.11292/2010. TEJASWINI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, THROUGH ITS PARTNER, PRASHANT V.ZARE AND ORS. V/S THE TALUKA DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO.OP.SOCIETIES,JALGAON AND ORS. ***** 3 Mr.VA Pawar,Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.VG Shelke,AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr.DB Thoke, Advocate for Resp.No.2. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 14th October,2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2) The petitioners, alleged borrower of Respondent No.2-cooperative bank, have questioned the issuance of Certificate in terms of Section 101 of The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act). 3) The grievance of the petitioners is, a) they dispute disbursement/availability of the loans as referred in each of the petitions by the Respondent No.2-Bank ; b) without following mandatory procedure, the Bank has filed an application seeking action of recovery under Section 101 of the said Act; and c) The procedure, as contemplated in Chapter-VIII-A 4 Sections 86A to 86F of the Act, is not adhered to by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The requisition was indeed restricted only to the production of documents, however, without compliance of Section 86a to 86F, referred above, and without affording an opportunity to the petitioners, the order under challenge is recorded. 4) The Respondent No.2-Bank was also conscious as to what was sought for by the petitioners from the learned Deputy Registrar. Avoidance of production of documents and deciding the matter itself are different stages. However, the learned Deputy Registrar deemed it proper to issue certification under Section 101 of the Act, without there being a valid compliance of obligation cast on the Respondent No.2.-bank. Such exercise was certainly violating the principles of natural justice and to the basic stand raised by the petitioners. 5) The learned Counsel for the petitioners has taken recourse to the judgment in the matter of Shri Basveshwar Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,Kolhapur Vs. Jayant Shivpal Banchhode reported in 2009(1) All.M.R., 908 and to the judgment of this Court dated 29th April, 2010, in WP No.1717/2009 (Group matters) to impress that 5 if the requirement in terms of Section 86A to 86F of the Act are not adhered to, the consequence would be to quash and set aside the certification under Section 101 of the said Act. In the judgment of Basaveshwar Co-operative Credit Society (cites supra), the Division Bench observed, the directions to deposit entire amount under challenge was uncalled for. The Division Bench also found that stringent conditions indicated that non-compliance of the deposit would result in dismissal or vacation of ad interim orders,without reference to the Court. 6) Considering the nature of accusations levelled in the present proceedings and in paragraph 11 of WP No.4638/2010, specific stand is demonstrated by the petitioners that since no financial facilities are availed by them, the directions as regard imposition of payment conditions, as sought, would not be possible to be indicated. 7) The order under challenge, in this scenario, certainly calls for interference and in the light of what is indicated herein above, these matters are remitted back to the learned Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalgaon, to decide the same afresh after hearing both the sides and particularly in tune to Chapter VIII-A 6 Sections 86A onwards. Both the parties to appear before the learned Deputy Registrar on 15th November, 2010. The learned Deputy Registrar, considering the age of the matters and nature of controversy, shall expeditiously dispose of all the cases up to 30th April, 2011. The parties shall not seek unnecessary and unreasonable accommodation from the Deputy Registrar. 8) The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs. In view of disposal of the writ petitions, Civil Applications in respective WPs do not survive, they are disposed of accordingly. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/