1507wp3338.11.odt 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3338 OF 2011. Arun Wamanrao Bhoyar ..vs.. Mahatma Jyotia Fule Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha and ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. S.K.Tambde, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tajwarkhan, Addl.Govt.Pleder for R.2. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 15th July, 2011. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Recovery Certificate issued under Section 98 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for the brevity sake referred to as the said Act) and the Attachment Order dated 18/10/2010 passed by the Special Recovery and Sale Officer for attaching the immovable property of the petitioner mentioned in the said Recovery Certificate. The said Recovery Certificate has been issued in view of the fact that in the Enquiry under Section 88 of the said Act, which was conducted by the Assistant Registrar, the petitioner was found to be liable for an amount of Rs.1,58,154/-. The liability of the petitioner is apart from the liability of the other Directors. In so far as the Certificate issued under Section 98 of the said Act is concerned, the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy by way of Revision under Section 154 of the said Act. The fact that a predeposit would have to be made is no answer for not prosecuting the said remedy. The 1507wp3338.11.odt 2 Recovery Certificate having been issued and the attachment and the proposed sale being an action taken pursuant to the said Recovery Certificate, the same cannot be interdicted by this court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has filed instant petition on 11/7/2011 wheres the Recovery Certificate and the Attachment Order are both dated 18/10/2010. There is no answer forthcoming as to why the petition has been filed at this point of time but it can safely be inferred that the petitioner did not want to make the predeposit as contemplated under Section 154(2) of the said Act. In that view of the matter, this court does not deem it fit to entertain the above petition It would be open for the petitioner to prosecute the said remedy under Section 154 if otherwise entitled to in law. If such proceedings are filed, needless to say that the observations in the instant order would not come in the way of the petitioner while prosecuting the said proceedings. JUDGE chute