1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1806 OF 2010. Jaiprakash Shriram Bhutange -: versus :- Asstt. Registrar Co.op. Societies and others. WRIT PETITION NO. 1807 OF 2010. Govind Keshavrao Tajne -: versus :- Asstt. Registrar Co.op. Societies and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JUNE 28, 2010. Heard Shri S.K. Tambde, learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri K.S. Motwani, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Shri V.N. Gaoli, learned counsel for respondent no.5. Matters arise out of identical revenue recovery certificates issued by respondent no.1 on the request of respondent no.2 – Credit Cooperative Society. Contention of petitioners is, that they are not borrowers at all and they have not executed any document in favour of respondent no.2. They point out that it is the present respondent no.5 Manohar Chandanji Ganvir who has taken loan from respondent no.2 Society using their names and by making false signatures, and thus has fabricated loan papers. 2 Shri Tambde, learned counsel contends that this position is accepted by respondent no.5 himself by filing affidavit and in Section 88 proceedings. According to him in this situation, had respondent no.1 considered this position and recorded some finding, the petitioners could have challenged that order in appropriate jurisdiction. His argument is, respondent no.1 is refusing to apply its mind to the controversy. Shri Gaoli, learned counsel for respondent no.5 states that the relevant documents are already before the Authorities. Shri Motwani, learned counsel for respondent no.2 contends that petitioners and respondent no.5 are attempting to defeat the loan recovery and they are hand in glove. His contention is though respondent no.5 gave some cheques towards the loan recovery and those cheques have been dishonoured. Learned A.G.P. contends that respondent no.1 has considered the controversy and found it appropriate to issue R.R.C. against petitioners. The basic question before respondent no.1 was, whether loan was disbursed by respondent no.2 society to petitioners or than to respondent no.5 ? No finding has been recorded in that respect. The documents no where prima facie show that petitioners have not received any loan. However, this court cannot conclude the issue in writ jurisdiction and it is for respondent no.1 to apply his mind and to record appropriate finding in this respect, after parties are given necessary opportunity. 3 With that end in view, the impugned R.R.Cs, dated 15.12.2009 are hereby quashed and set aside. The proceedings are restored to the file of respondent no.1 for taking fresh decision in accordance with law and after giving parties reasonable opportunity. The parties to appear before said Authority on 12.07.2010 and the Authority shall attempt to decide the proceedings finally as early as possible and in any case by 31.08.2010. Respondent no.5 shall also remain present before respondent no.1 on 12.07.2010. Writ Petition is allowed if the aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. No costs. . JUDGE Rgd.