WP.3097-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3097 OF 2010 Mr. Udaysingh Rathod ...Petitioner Vs. The Special Recovery & Sales Officer & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. Rajendra C. Dhuru, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. N. Bhosle, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2, 4 to 6. Mrs. Usha R. Tiwan, for the Respondent No.3. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JANUARY 11, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, respondent No.3 and the learned AGP for respondent Nos. 2, 4 to 6. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, respondent No.5, who was pleased to confirm the order passed by the Deputy Registrar against the petitioner herein. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision application which has been allowed and the matter was remanded back. Thereafter a fresh inquiry was held and the certificate under S. 101 of the WP.3097-10 - 2 - Cooperative Societies Act was issued. The said order was again challenged by the petitioner before the Divisional Registrar who was pleased to confirm the said order by passing a reasoned order. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the payments which are made by the petitioner have not been taken into consideration by the both the authorities below. He submitted that the petitioner has been paying the maintenance amount from time to time. However, proper receipts have not been issued by the Society. He, therefore, submitted that though on the occasion of the first demand, the Divisional Registrar had directed the Dy. Registrar to consider the order passed by the Cooperative Court, the said order was not considered. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed an additional compilation and also the accounts to show that the entire payments have been made. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Society submitted that the partitioner has not been paying the monthly dues. He submitted that taking the advantage of the earlier order passed by the Cooperative Court at the interim stage, the petitioner paid Rs.317/- as maintenance and thereafter did not pay the enhanced maintenance and therefore, the Society was constrained to file the proceedings under S. 101 of the Cooperative Societies Act. WP.3097-10 - 3 - 3. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, in my view, no case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the authorities below. While exercising the writ jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence on record or to go through the accounts and find out whether the amount is payable or not. The two authorities below have considered the entire record and have given a finding to that effect. Hence, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]