( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5851 OF 2010 Rajendra s/o. Lalitmohan Vakil .. Petitioner Age. 52 years, Occ. Legal Practitioner, R/o. “Ram Raje”, 1 Shree Niketan Colony, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. Versus 1. Lokvikas Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., .. Respondents “Lokvikas Bhawan”, Plot No. 10, Seven Hills, Near Uddan Pool, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. 2. The Special Recovery Officer, Lokvikas Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., “Lokvikas Bhawan”, Plot No. 10, Seven Hills, Near Uddan Pool, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. 3. Dhirendra Lalitmohan Chaudhary, & Amrish Lalitmohan Chaudhary, R/o. Flat No. 21/22, V.K. Market, Pandariba, Aurangabad. 4. Nandkumar Venkatdas Chaudhary, R/o. Flat No. 21/22, V.K. Market, Pandariba, Aurangabad. 5. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Department, Aurangabad. 6. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Co-operative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. ( 2 ) Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. S.S. Rajvaidya, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 served – absent. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 5 & 6. CORAM : R.M. BORDE,J. DATED : 27.10.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. With consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The petitioner is raising exception to the proceedings for recovery initiated by respondent Co-operative Bank. It is contention of the petitioner that he is a guarantor in respect of loan borrowed by respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have defaulted in repaying the amount borrowed by them. As such the bank has initiated proceedings for recovery against the petitioner, who is one of the guarantors. It is contention of the petitioner that instead of proceeding against the property of respondent Nos. 3 & 4, the bank is pursing the remedies against the petitioner. Another objection raised by the petitioner is in ( 3 ) respect of non-observance of principle of natural justice in issuing certificate under section 101 of the Co-operative Societies Act by the Dy. Registrar. It is contention of the petitioner that the Dy. Registrar while issuing the certificate has not extended opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and has proceeded to issue certificate without ensuring the service of notice to petitioner. 3. The objection raised by the petitioner in respect of non-observance of the principle of natural justice has been disputed by the respondents. It is contended that the petitioner was served with notice by hand-delivery. The fact, however, remains that there is no reliable evidence placed on record in respect of effective service on the petitioner prior to issuance of certificate under section 101 of the Co-operative Societies Act. In such circumstances, in order to extend further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it is desirable to remit the matter back to the Dy. Registrar for reconsideration of the issue in respect of issuance of recovery certificate against the petitioner. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he is one of the guarantors in respect of the loan borrowed by the principle ( 4 ) borrower. While remitting the matter back, I deem it appropriate to impose condition in respect of deposit of the amount by the petitioner with the respondent bank. It is informed that amount receivable by the bank from the borrowers is to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs) approximately. The petitioner, in these circumstances, shall have to be directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) with the respondent bank. The amount shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. Subject to deposit of the amount as directed, the order passed against the petitioner shall stand quashed and set aside. The Dy. Registrar shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall proceed to decide the issue in respect of issuance of recovery certificate against the petitioner. It is clarified at this stage that the bank shall have liberty to effect recovery of the amount from the principal borrower as well as other guarantor. The impugned recovery certificate is quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner. The petitioner shall cause appearance before the Dy. Registrar on 13th December, 2010 and Dy. Registrar shall reconsider the issue after extending opportunity of hearing ( 5 ) to the petitioner within a period of two months thereafter. 4. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the circumstances, there shall be no as order as to costs. [R.M. BORDE,J.] snk/2010/OCT10/wp5851.10