(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10555 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10574 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO. 10555 OF 2010 Sau. Pritibala w/o. Ram Gujrathi, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Gujrathi Galli, Chopada, .. Petitioner Taluka : Chopada, (Original opponent District : Jalgaon. no.1) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (Cooperation and Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai). 2. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chopada, Taluka : Chopada, District : Jalgaon. 3. Mahesh Nagri Cooperative Pat Pedhi Ltd., Chopada, Taluka : Chopada, District : Jalgaon, Through its Manager, Shri Sunil s/o. Gamanlal Jain, Age : Major, Occupation : Service, Chopada, Taluka : Chopada, District : Jalgaon. (2) 4. Umeshlal s/o. Shankarlal Gujrathi, Age : 60 years, .. Respondents Occupation : Business, (No.3 - Original R/o. Gujrathi Galli, Chopada, applicant Taluka : Chopada, & District : Jalgaon. Nos.4 & 5 - Original Opponent 5. Ram s/o. Sundarlal Gujrathi, Nos.2 and 3) Age : 48 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Gujrathi Galli, Chopada, Taluka : Chopada, District : Jalgaon. ....................... Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. P.S. Gaikwad, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Respondent no.4 served (Absent). Respondent no.5 served (Absent). ........................ WRIT PETITION NO. 10574 OF 2010 Ram s/o. Sundarlal Gujrathi, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Gujrathi Galli, Chopada, .. Petitioner Taluka : Chopada, (Original opponent District : Jalgaon. no.1) (3) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (Cooperation and Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai). 2. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chopada, Taluka : Chopada, District : Jalgaon. 3. Mahesh Nagri Cooperative Pat Pedhi Ltd., Chopada, Taluka : Chopada, District : Jalgaon, Through its Manager, Shri Sunil s/o. Gamanlal Jain, Age : Major, Occupation : Service, Chopada, Taluka : Chopada, District : Jalgaon. 4. Umeshlal s/o. Shankarlal Gujrathi, Age : 60 years, .. Respondents Occupation : Business, (No.3 - Original R/o. Gujrathi Galli, Chopada, applicant Taluka : Chopada, & District : Jalgaon. Nos.4 & 5 - Original opponent 5. Sau. Pritibala w/o. Ram Gujrathi, Nos.2 and 3) Age : 41 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Gujrathi Galli, Chopada, Taluka : Chopada, District : Jalgaon. .......................... (4) Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. P.S. Gaikwad, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Respondent no.4 served (Absent). Respondent no.5 served (Absent). ************** CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. By these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, both, borrowers i.e. wife and husband, are assailing the orders dated 7-10-2010 and 21-10-2010 passed by the respondent no.2 / Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, allowing application under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, "Act of 1960"), preferred by respondent no.3 / Cooperative Society, and issuing recovery certificate accordingly. 2. The contention of Mr. C.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is, the matter was on (5) 7-10-2010 fixed for filing of reply by respective petitioners. He has invited attention to order sheet maintained in both these matters by the Assistant Registrar for the said purpose. He further states that on 7-10-2010, the petitioners moved applications for adjournment and inspite of that applications, the Assistant Registrar proceeded with hearing of matter on merits and delivered the impugned order. According to him, this is in breach of principles of natural justice and also in breach of procedure prescribed under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (First Amendment) Rules 2007 (For short, "2007 Rules"). He has invited attention to Rules 86A to 86F to urge that the procedure prescribed therein is mandatory and that procedure has not been followed. He has relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported at 2010(6) ALL MR 550, in the case of Sundeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, to urge that when such procedure is not followed, the High Court has held that remedy under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, is no bar and Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be directly entertained. 3. Mr. P.S. Gaikwad, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 / Society, in both the matters, as also, Mrs. V.A. Shinde, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for (6) respondent nos.1 and 2, have supported the order. They rely upon the very same order sheet to show that the necessary procedure was followed and opportunity was given to both the petitioners to defend themselves. The inquiry to be conducted is summary in nature and on 7-10-2010, grant of adjournment was opposed by respondent no.3. The respondent no.2, therefore, rejected the request for adjournment and closed the matter for orders. The impugned order passed on 21-10-2010 contains necessary reasons and in this situation, the procedure of 2007 Rules has been followed. The respondent no.3 has placed reliance on a Division Bench ruling in Letters Patent Appeal No. 209 of 2009 (The Maharashtra Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd., Latur, and another Vs. Ravindra s/o. Prabhakar Kulkarni & others), dated 29th October 2010, to urge that in such circumstances, petitioners must be directed to file revision under Section 154 of the Act of 1960. The order passed by me on 12-1-2011, in Writ Petition No. 9477 of 2010 (Jagannath s/o. Govinda Mahale and another Vs. Chopda Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others) taking similar view is also pressed into service. 4. The fact that remedy of revision available to the petitioners is not in dispute. The contentions, to take recourse to it, petitioners have to deposit 50 % amount of the recovery certificate. It is further urged that as mandatory requirement of (7) the Rules are not followed, this Court can interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 5. Perusal of the judgment reported in the case of Sundeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (supra), delivered by Division Bench of this Court, reveals that there it was admitted that Recovery Officer issued recovery certificate without passing any judgment and order. In that background, this Court has found that respondent no.4 failed to follow the procedure under Chapter VIIIA of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. Thereafter, briefly the procedure has been commented upon. 6. Here, perusal of the impugned order reveals that the stand of petitioners was of total denial and that has been considered by the respondent no.2. He has also found that as per affidavit filed by respondent no.3 / Society, loan was disbursed to petitioners vide various cheques and the petitioners have also repaid some part by depositing amount in cash. It is also recorded that the signatures on specific documents in relation to that loan were not denied. This order, therefore, shows that it contains reasons in its support. It, therefore, cannot be said that an unreasoned order has been passed. (8) 7. On 29-9-2010, the petitioner demanded copy of affidavit evidence filed on 15-9-2010 by respondent no.3 / Society. This affidavit in evidence has been mentioned as copy of reply in that order sheet. The order sheet further shows that for giving reply to the said affidavit of examination, next date i.e. 7-10-2010 was fixed. This proceedings, therefore, show that hearing as contemplated under Rule 86E of 2007 Rules was going on. On 7-10-2010, the petitioners did not file any reply and adjournment was sought. It was objected to by the Counsel for respondent no.3 who then invited attention to the provisions of Rule 86E of 2007 Rules. Then same evidence was led and the respondent no.2 enquired from the petitioner, whether his Advocate was likely to remain present on the next date. Thereupon, the respondent no.3 again raised objection and that objection was accepted and the matter was closed for orders. This order sheet, therefore, does not show that procedure as prescribed by 2007 Rules was not followed. 8. In this situation, I find that the petitioners can approach the competent authority in revision under Section 154 of the Act of 1960. In view of that remedy, I do not find it necessary to observe anything more on merits of the controversy. 9. However, it is made clear that observations about (9) order sheet and the procedure followed are only for the purposes of recording necessary findings in this petition and the same shall not bind the revisional authority when it takes up the matter on merits. 10. With the above observations, the petitions are disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10555etc