1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 467/2010 In W.P.No. 3637/2010 Shri Shaligram Kisan Fuse vs. Special Recovery Officer Buldhana and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.H.Patil, Advocate for R-3. CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ DATE : 10.01.2011 Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petition against the order in revision on the ground that the appellant had not deposited 50% of the amount as required under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 3. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 154 (2A) does not contemplate the requirements of deposit of 50% of the amount unless the revision is directed against the recovery certificate. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant's revision was directed against the fixation of up set price for the auction and, therefore, no deposit was necessary. Section 154(2A) to 2` the extent it is related reads thus;- “154(2A): No application for revision shall be entertained against the recovery certificate issued by the Registrar under Section 101 unless the applicant deposits with the concerned society fifty per cent amount of the total amount of recoverable dues.” 4. We find no merit in this contention in view of the fact that the intention of the legislature is to require the deposit of 50% of the amount where the revision is preferred against the recovery of a sum of money. Since the recovery process is initiated by recovery certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, we have no doubt that the legislature contemplates that deposit could be made where revision is filed against the recovery including any stage subsequent to the recovery certificate. We find that similar view has been taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Greater Bombay Co- operative Banks Ltd., Mumbai and another vs. Dhillon P.Shah and others (2004(1)Mh.L.J., 996, where the learned Single Judge has held that the revision applicant is liable to deposit 50% of the amount as contemplated by sub section (2A) even if the revision is directed against the proclamation of sale under Rule 107 (11)(e) of the Rules. Clearly the stage of proclamation is 3` subsequent to the stage of issuance of the recovery certificate. In this view of the matter, we hold that the appellant is liable to deposit the amount of 50%. The appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE patle