1 wp-3396-09.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3396 OF 2009 Navyug Vidyapeeth Trust & ors. ..Petitioners Versus Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.690 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3396 OF 2009 Navyug Vidyapeeth Trust & ors. ..Petitioners Versus Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Abhijeet Parulekar with Mr. Pravin Kamble i/b Shaunak Satpute & Co. for the Petitioners Mr. C.G.Gavnekar for the Respondent No.6 Mr. R.M.Petne AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 19th December, 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 17-3-2009 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-op Societies, Konkan Region, New Mumbai, by which Order, the Application for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, came to be rejected. 2 It is required to be noted that the genesis of the said Order is the 2 wp-3396-09.sxw recovery certificate issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, for an amount of Rs.1,01,35,569/- against the Petitioners and the Respondent Nos.7 to 9. It appears that pursuant to the said recovery certificate, the execution proceedings were initiated and the Respondent No.5 i.e. the Recovery officer issued an attachment Order dated 3-6-2008 in exercise of powers under Section 156 of the said Act read with Rule 107 of the Rules, attaching the property of the Petitioners. It appears that thereafter, the upset price was fixed for the property and auction was directed to be held based on the said upset price. It seems that after the auction notice appeared in the newspaper, the Petitioners herein invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the authorities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act against the said recovery certificate by filing a revision under Section 154 of the said Act. In the said revision, the Petitioners moved an application for waiver of the pre-deposit which is to be made in terms of Section 154(2A) of the said Act. The same came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 17-3-2009. The revisional authority considering the mandatory provisions of Section 154(2A) and the law laid down by this court in that regard observed that such a waiver could not be granted to the Petitioners. As indicated above, the above Petition takes exception to the said Order dated 17-3-2009. 3 wp-3396-09.sxw 3 The above Petition had come up for admission on 19-10-2011 when a Learned Single Judge of this Court (A.S.Oka,J.)has observed as follows: “Prima facie, it appears to me that unless the petitioners deposit 50% of the recoverable dues payable as of today under the recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the said Act, this Petition cannot be entertained. Considering the fact that the first petitioner is stated to be running an Educational institution, sufficient time can be granted to the petitioners. The Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to take instructions. Stand over till 17th November, 2011.” 4 The above Petition has appeared on two occasions before this Court when adjournments were sought on the ground that the Petitioners would make a proposal to the bank for payment of the outstanding amount. However, today when the matter is called out, the proposal made by the Petitioners is that the Petitioners are willing to make a payment of 10% of the outstanding amount within a period of 8 weeks and thereafter pay the outstanding amount by making payment over a period of one year by installments. In the background of the default committed by the Petitioners in repayment of the loan taken by the Petitioners, the said proposal is not acceptable to the Learned 4 wp-3396-09.sxw Counsel for the Respondent No.6 bank. Inspite of the attempts being made, the Petitioners are not in a position to give a better proposal than the one as mentioned earlier. According to the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.6, the said proposal does not inspire confidence and only if the Petitioners are able to show their bonafides by paying a substantial amount i.e. at least 25% of the outstanding that the Respondent No.6 would be interested in considering any proposal of the Petitioners. The stand of the Respondent No.6 bank in the facts of the aforesaid case seems to be justified. The Respondent No.6 as can be seen was not precipitating the matter considering the fact that 1500 students are studying with the Petitioners. However, the conduct of the Petitioners dis-entitles them to any further indulgence being shown. 5 In so far as, the Revision application is concerned, though by Order dated 19-10-2011, the Petitioners were directed to deposit 50% of the recoverable dues payable and only on such condition that the above Petition was to be entertained. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is not in a position to make a statement in that respect also. Hence in the light of the said stand of the Petitioners, it is not possible for this Court to entertain the above Petition as the Order dated 19-10-2011 is in the nature of a self operative order. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. 5 wp-3396-09.sxw 6 In view of the dismissal of the above Petition, the Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of as infructuous. ( R. M. SAVANT, J. )