: 1 : wp.3526.2011.sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3526 OF 2011 Mohammed Iqbal Khan & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.Shailesh Shah i/b Joseph Fernandes for the Petitioners Mr.Mahesh Memon Respondent No.2 Mr.R.M. Patne, AGP, for Resp. No.1 CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: JUNE 9, 2011. P.C.: 1. The order of Divisional Joint Registrar dated 17.1.2011 is under challenge in this petition. He allowed the revision application partly and set aside the order dated 7.3.2006 of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai. The Assistant Registrar refused to issue a recovery certificate u/s 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and that is how the respondent No.2 Bank approached the Divisional Joint Registrar. 2. From the record it appears that the Assistant Registrar refused to grant the recovery certificate by assigning reasons. One of the reasons assigned by him is that the Bank and the borrower entered into the transaction but in the meanwhile the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines permitted compound interest : 2 : wp.3526.2011.sxw being charged. However, the account statement produced does not say that the compound interest is charged but shows interest being charged month to month. Therefore, the claim of the bank for issuance of recovery certificate on the ground that the sum of Rs.42,77,059 is due and payable is not substantiated. 3. The Divisional Joint Registrar was obliged to go into these reasons and if he finds them untenable in law or totally perverse being contrary to the material produced he should have said so specifically and only then he could have set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar says nothing of this kind and proceeds to hold that the observations lack merit. Even if there is no dispute about the fact that the loan was taken and there was a liability to repay the amount, yet, it was incumbent upon the authorities to find out whether the claim is substantiated by the bank by producing the relevant records including the statement of accounts. If the Assistant Registrar does not find it to be so substantiated and proved then the Divisional Joint Registrar while interfering with such order was obliged to assign cogent and satisfactory reasons. The limits of revisional jurisdiction should have been present to his mind. It does not appear that he has applied his mind as a revisional authority to the facts and circumstances of this case. For all these reasons, the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai Division dated 17.1.2011 in Revision Application No.308 of 2006 is set aside. The revision application shall be reheard and redecided by the Divisional Joint Registrar. He must decide the same as expeditiously as : 3 : wp.3526.2011.sxw possible and within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this order after giving opportunity to both sides. He should not be influenced by any of the observations and findings in the order passed on 17.1.2011 which stands quashed and set aside. 4. Petition is allowed in these terms. No costs. 5. Needless to state that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions and each one of them are kept open. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)