1 wp 5581.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5581 OF 2010 1. Sow. Jogindarkaur W/o Surjitsing Sachdeo and another .. Petitioners Versus 1. Assistant Registrar Co-op. Societies Newasa and others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5582 OF 2010 1. Prashant S/o Sitaram Thaware and another .. Petitioners Versus 1. Assistant Registrar Co-op. Societies Newasa and others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5583 OF 2010 Kishor S/o Sukhdeo Gaikwad .. Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Registrar Co-op. Societies Newasa and others .. Respondents 2 wp 5581.10 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5587 OF 2010 Gajendra S/o Maruti Potdar .. Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Registrar Co-op. Societies Newasa and others .. Respondents Shri C. K. Shinde, Advocate h/f Shri S. D. Kotkar, the Advocate for petitioners in all matters. Shri K. B. Choudhari, Shri V. G. Shelke, S. B. Pulkundwar and Smt. R. K. Ladda, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri N. V. Gaware, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 in all matters. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 09TH AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard Shri C. K. Shinde, the learned counsel holding for Shri S. D. Kotkar, the learned counsel for petitioners and Shri Gaware, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioners impugn the notice/order of attachment of the property issued by the respondent No. 3/Recovery Officer. 3. Shri Shinde, the learned counsel for petitioners submits 3 wp 5581.10 that the said notice issued is without jurisdiction and authority. The proceedings under Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules could not have been invoked by the Special Recovery Officer, as there is no recovery certificate U/Sec. 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The learned counsel further contends that petitioners were never issued any notice as is also confirmed by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. According to the learned counsel the impugned show cause notice is without any jurisdiction. The learned counsel further contends that even if the case of the respondent is accepted, then a certificate has been issued U/Sec. 98(B) of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act and if a certificate is issued U/Sec. 98(B), then it can be executed in as much as the amount can be recovered by the Collector only as an arrears of land revenue, in view of the same the impugned notice cannot be sustainable. 4. Shri Gaware, the learned counsel submits that the liquidator has passed the order after issuance of notice to petitioners. This fact has been suppressed by petitioners. The learned counsel further contends that the order was passed by the liquidator invoking the power U/Sec. 105 of the Act. Thereafter, certificate has been obtained U/Sec. 98(B). In view of 4 wp 5581.10 Sec. 156 of the Act the Registrar can recover the amount. The powers U/Sec. 156 of the Act are without prejudice to any other powers. The learned counsel further contends that the petition is filed suppressing the material facts and is based on distarted facts and the same should be dismissed with costs. 5. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions on the premise that no certificates U/Sec. 101 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act are issued, nor any notice to that effect has been issued to petitioners. The respondent bank has placed on record the copy of notice issued to petitioners and thereafter the order being passed by the liquidator and subsequently certificates are issued U/Sec. 98(B). 6. In view of the fact that the liquidator has passed the order U/Sec. 105 of the Act and the Registrar can proceed U/Sec. 156 of the M. C. S. Act vis-a-vis provisions of Rule 107 of the M. C. S. Rules also would be attracted. 7. The petitioners have not challenged the order passed by the liquidator inter alia the certificates issued. Shri Shinde the learned counsel for petitioners states that the petitioners were 5 wp 5581.10 not aware of the orders passed by the liquidator, subsequently, the certificates issued. As such, the petitioners would challenge the same before the appropriate forum. 8. In view of the above premise the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings against the order passed by the liquidator and the certificate issued U/Sec. 98-B. The authority before whom the proceedings would be filed, would take into consideration the time spent in prosecuting the present writ petitions. The ad-interim order passed on 25.06.2010 shall further continued for a period of three weeks from today. 9. Needless to state that all the points are kept open and I have not dilated anything on merits of the matters. In the event such proceedings are filed, the same should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible by the authorities. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11