( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4112 OF 2008 Kalpana w/o Sanjay Kale PETITIONER VERSUS Indira Sahakari Bank Ltd., Dhule, through its Officer on Special Duty and others. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4113 OF 2008 Sow. Jyoti w/o Rakesh Wagh PETITIONER VERSUS Indira Sahakari Bank Ltd., Dhule, through its Officer on Special Duty and others. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4114 OF 2008 Ratnamala w/o Rajendra Kale PETITIONER VERSUS Indira Sahakari Bank Ltd., Dhule, through its Officer on Special Duty and others. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4115 OF 2008 Madhavi w/o Ravindra Kale PETITIONER VERSUS ( 2 ) Indira Sahakari Bank Ltd., Dhule, through its Officer on Special Duty and others. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4116 OF 2008 Sow. Yogita w/o Umesh Kale PETITIONER VERSUS Indira Sahakari Bank Ltd., Dhule, through its Officer on Special Duty and others. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4117 OF 2008 Sow. Nalini w/o Ashok Marathe PETITIONER VERSUS Indira Sahakari Bank Ltd., Dhule, through its Officer on Special Duty and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.S. Bagul, advocate for the petitioner in all petitions. Mr. N.N. Desale, advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for respondents No. 2 and 3. None for respondents No. 4 to 7. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 1st February, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The group of these six petitions arises out of orders rendered by the revisional authority whereby the revision applications of the petitioners were rejected ( 3 ) on the ground that 50 per cent of the amount shown under Recovery Certificates, issued by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies in the exercise of powers under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, were not deposited. 2. The petitions involve disputed questions of facts regarding the amounts which have been deposited by the petitioners and the authority of the Chairman to enter into one time settlement agreement with them. It appears that the petitioners and the Chairman have entered into agreement for giving the benefit of one time settlement. They have also deposited various amounts even after the recovery certificate has been issued. 3. It prima facie appears that there is deficiency in the payments of petitioner Yogita Kale and Nalini Marathe. There also appears dispute regarding the quantum of 50 per cent amount payable by petitioner Jyoti Wagh. However, rest of the petitioners are prima facie entitled to agitate the questions raised by them ( 4 ) before the revisional authority. For, from the information appearing in chart No. 2, furnished by the respondent Bank, it is manifest that they have paid more than 50 per cent of the amounts shown in the recovery certificates. 4. So far as petitioners Yogita Kale and Nalini Marathe are concerned, Mr. Bagul fairly states that he would ask those two petitioners to pay the deficit amount so as to ensure 50 per cent of the payment as required in order to invoke the revisional jurisdiction. 5. The revisional authority may consider the payments made by petitioner Jyoti Wagh after issuance of the recovery certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and adjust such amount towards the 50 per cent of the payment after due calculation and hearing the parties. 6. Considering the above fact situation, the petitions are dismissed due to involvement of the disputed questions of fact. However, the revisional ( 5 ) authority is directed to consider the payments made by the petitioners and if 50 per cent of the amounts shown in the recovery certificates issued under section 101 are found to have been paid, the revision applications shall be entertained, particularly having regard to the information appearing in chart No. 2 furnished by the Bank and after hearing the parties. The chart No. 2 furnished by the Bank to form part of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the revisional authority on 22nd February, 2010. The revision applications shall be registered if the compliance of 50 per cent of the payment is made after depositing the deficit amount or if it is found that already the amounts have been so deposited. No costs. 7. In view of dismissal of the writ petitions, civil application No. 13591/2009 (in Writ Petition No. 4116/2008) stands disposed of. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp4112-4117-08 ( 6 )