bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2758 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 2758 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 2758 OF 2009 Shri Mukund Kashinath Natu ... Petitioner v/s Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thane City & ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.S.Dani for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Patil, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 28TH APRIL, 2009 28TH APRIL, 2009 28TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order passed on 4.11.2008 by the Divisional Joint Registrar. By this order the Divisional Joint Registrar has dismissed the stay application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not deposited the requisite amount under Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The order records that, 50% of the amount from 12 recovery certificates i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- was sent by cheque No.551390 to the Recovery Officer on 16.10.2008. However, subsequently, the petitioner informed the 2 Recovery Officer not to deposit the amounts and, therefore, the cheque was not encashed. Thereafter the petitioner again handed over a fresh cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Society which has now been encashed. This cheque was encashed on 17.10.2008 by the Society during the pendency of the revision application. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the revisional authority ought to have considered the stay application on merits rather than rejecting the same on the ground that the amount has not been paid in view of the fact that he had deposited Rs.2,50,000/- with the Bank prior to the impugned decision. 3. Mr.Hegde for the respondents submits that although the cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- has been encashed, two cheques were handed over subsequently in respect of the balance amount which have been dishonoured and, therefore, the revisional authority has not erred in refusing to grant the stay in the matter. He submits that the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is less than 50% of the outstandings. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. After perusing the impugned order, I am of the view that the impugned order must be set aside since it does not 3 take into consideration the merits of the case as to whether a stay ought to be granted. This is probably because there was no compliance of Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Admittedly, Rs.2,50,000/- has now been deposited with the respondent Society. In case, a further amount of Rs.50,000/- is deposited with the Society within two weeks from today, the Divisional Joint Registrar shall hear the stay application filed by the petitioner on merits. 5. The parties shall appear before the Divisional Joint Registrar on 25.5.2009. The stay application and the revisionl application shall be heard only after the petitioner deposits Rs.50,000/- as directed aforesaid, within the stipulated time. It is made clear that the stay application shall stand rejected without further reference to Court, in case this amount of Rs.50,000/- is not deposited as directed. 6. By the order of this Court dated 5.3.2009, the Society was directed not to take any coercive action against the Society. This order will continue till the stay application is heard. 7. The stay application shall be decided within a period of eight weeks from the appearance of the parties 4 before the revisional authority. 8. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.