1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7004 OF 2009 1. Sau. Pramilabai w/o. Devendra Sisodiya, Age 24 yrs., Occu. Household, Though G.P.A. Devendra s/o. Gangadhar Sisodiya, Both R/o. Milk Diary Quarters, Kalamsara, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The Manager, Saraswati Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., Shirpur, 22 Sai Baba Colony, Karwand Naka, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. 2. The Asst. Registrar, Office of Co-operative Society, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. 3. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nasik Division, Nasik. 4. The Special Recovery Officer, of Saraswati Nagar Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. 5. The State of Maharashtra, The Secretary of Co-operative Department, Mantralaya Mumbai. ....Respondents. Shri. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2,3, & 5. Shri. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 4. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 11th June, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 17.9.2009 passed by 2 the respondent No. 3 - The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nasik has dismissed the revision under section 154 (2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, preferred by the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited 50% of the amount of dues recoverable from the petitioner. 2. Notice for final disposal was issued on 16th of October 2009 and an interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause "C". In response to the notice, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 whereas Shri. N.B. Suryawanshi appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 4. The parties agree that the matter can be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule, made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally by consent of parties. 4. On 7.11.2005 the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Shirpur had issued recovery certificate under section 101 of the Co- operative Societies Act for recovery of Rs. 41,025/- from the petitioner. This recovery certificate was the subject matter of challenge in revision preferred by the petitioner. In the said revision, the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 20,850/- + Rs. 417/- = Rs. 21,267/- as required by section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The said revision No. R-24/2006 was dismissed by an order dated 16th of January 2007 passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Co- 3 operative Societies, Nasik. 5. The petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 1246/2007 and by the judgment and order dated 16th December 2008 Writ Petition No. 1246/2007 was allowed. The orders impugned dated 16th January 2007 was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted back to the respondent No. 2 i.e. District Deputy Registrar, to decide the proceedings of certificate under section 101 of the said Act, afresh in accordance with law. 6. On remand of the matter, the District Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies again issued certificate under section 101 for recovery of Rs. 43,586/- + interest. The petitioner preferred revision application before the Divisional Joint Registrar as per the provisions of section 154 of the said Act. It was registered as Revision Application No. R - Nil/2009. The said revision application has been dismissed by the Divisional Joint Registrar by an order dated 17th of September 2009, on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited 50% of the amount recoverable in terms of the certificate dated 4.3.2009 issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Thus, both the orders are subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 7. Shri. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already deposited an amount of Rs. 20,850 + Rs. 417 = Rs. 4 21,267/- towards the principal dues in earlier proceedings. The same was not withdrawn, although the petitioner succeeded in writ petition. Hence, according to him, he was not required to give fresh deposit upon filing of the subsequent revision, arising out of the certificate under section 101 of the said Act, almost for the said amount. 8. Shri. N.B. Suryawanshi, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 4 opposes the contentions raised by the petitioner. He submits that the learned Divisional Joint Registrar was right in passing the order, dismissing the revision for not depositing 50% of the amount of certificate. He submits that this is a requirement of law and it has to be complied with. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 20,850 + Rs. 417 = Rs. 21,267/- on 17.2.2006 when she preferred the revision R-24/2006. The said order passed in revision, was set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1246/07. The petitioner did not withdraw the said amount. In view of this, the petitioner would be required to pay amount of difference. Shri. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, makes a statement that the he shall deposit Rs. 2,000/- in each of the revision and that would specify the amount of 50% deposit for maintainability of the revision which were preferred before the Divisional Joint Registrar. 10. It cannot be disputed that the provisions of section 154 of the said 5 Act, requires deposit of 50% of amount. However, when the order passed in revision on earlier occasion was set aside in the writ petition, the petitioner was required to get the said amount. The petitioner has not withdrawn the said amount. Hence, the same can be adjusted towards the deposit which is required to be made in revision. 11. In the result, the instant writ petition succeeds. The order dated 17th September 2009 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Nasik, dismissing the revision application No. R- Nil/2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Divisional Joint Registrar is directed to accept the deposit of Rs. 2,000/- from the petitioner on the date of hearing as compliance of Section 154 (2A) of the said Act and to proceed with the matter on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Joint Registrar on 5th July 2010. The Divisional Joint Registrar is directed to decide the matter expeditiously. Rule is made absolute in such terms with no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/7004.09