1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.95 OF 2010 Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd. : Petitioner (Orig.Respondent no.1) V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Harinder Toor and Mr.S.B.Pawar i/b. Mr.Subhash Bane for the petitioner. Ms Uma Palsule-Desai, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.Sunil M. Kadam for respondent no.3. ... CORAM : J.N.PATEL, ACTING C.J. & B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 01, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner takes exception to the order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (respondent no.2 herein). 2 3. The proceedings for recovery of the dues of the petitioner are initiated by the petitioner on the basis of a Recovery Certificate issued by the competent authority. In the said proceedings, property bearing flat no.101 on the 1st floor of Sukhada Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sir Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai—400 018, was attached and proceedings for auction of the said property were also initiated. 4. There are a series of litigations between the parties. The respondent no.3 filed a revision under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said “Act”) before the respondent no.1 praying for cancellation and setting aside the auction notice dated 2.12.2009. A prayer was also made in the said revision for directing the respondent no.1 in the proceedings (petitioner herein) for refund of Rs.2,80,16,156/-. In the said proceedings, the order impugned herein has been passed whereby the respondent no.1 has directed the applicant therein i.e. the respondent no.3 to file an application/objection under rule 107(19) before the Special Recovery Officer within one month. By the impugned order, the respondent no.1 has also directed to stay the auction proceedings initiated on the basis of the recovery certificate. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 3 5. Mr.Chinoy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the revision itself was not tenable under section 154 before the respondent no.1. The only remedy that was available was to move the said Recovery Officer under rule 107(19) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said “Rules”). He submits that the respondent no.1 while relegating the respondent no.3 to the said remedy, has erred in law in staying the auction proceedings. He submits that the said order is totally without jurisdiction. 6. Mr.Dwarkadas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3, on the contrary, submits that the said proceedings are not only revision challenging the recovery certificate, but were in fact seeking a declaration that the amount under the recovery certificate was already recovered by the petitioner herein and, therefore, the claim itself stood satisfied. 7. We find that the proceedings initiated by the respondent no.3 before the respondent no.1 by way of revision itself was not tenable. Firstly, it could be seen that there was no order which has challenged the said revision application. Not only this, it appears that the revisional authority (respondent no.1) itself has directed the respondent no.3 herein 4 to file an application under rule 107(19) of the Rules. We find that having relegated the respondent no.3 to the remedy available to it under rule 107(19), it was not at all permissible for the respondent no.1 to stay the auction proceedings. There is another aspect of the matter. In view of the provisions of sub-section (2A) of section 154, a revision challenging the recovery certificate is not tenable unless the applicant deposits with the concerned society, fifty per cent amount of the total amount of recoverable dues. 8. In this view of the matter, we find that the order impugned herein was totally without jurisdiction and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE B. R. GAVAI, J.