:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 371 OF 2007 Mrs. Dilshad Zakirhusen Sheikh ..Petitioner Vs. Manager, Sahyadri Nagri Co. and ors. ..Respondents Mr. G.S. Godbole for petitioner. Mr. R.V. Govilkar with Mr.Sarang Aradhye for respondent no.1. Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for respondent no.5. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : June 06, 2008. Date : June 06, 2008. Date : June 06, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Godbole the learned counsel for the petitioner who is aggrieved by the order dated 19/12/2006 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies thereby dismissing the Revision Application No. 308 of 2006. The Recovery Officer had issued a Recovery Certificate against the petitioner in the proceedings initiated under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act) at the behest of the :2: respondent no.1-bank on 29/1/2004. The total amount sought to be recovered was fixed at Rs.1,02,420/- including an amount of Rs.1612/- by way of costs. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Recovery Officer proceeding to decide the recovery proceedings and issued the Recovery Certificate without issuing notice to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner and, therefore, the said certificate is illegal. Reliance has been placed on the proceedings held before the Recovery Officer on 29/1/2004 in which it is noted that it was not known that the notice issued to the borrower was received and despite this noting the Recovery Officer issued the impugned Recovery Certificate on the same day. By relying upon the judgments of this court in the case of Ramkrishna vs. District Deputy Registrar [1978 Mh.L.J. Notes of Cases 17] and Lalmani Ramnath Tiwari vs. Bhimrao Govind Pawar [2001(2) Mh.L.J. 342], it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Recovery Certificate is illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside. 2. There is no dispute that the Recovery :3: Certificate dated 29/1/2004 was sought to be challenged for the first time by filing a revision application under Section 154 of the Act on or about 31/3/2005 and the same was returned to the petitioner on 24/11/2005 for non compliance of the statutory requirement of Section 154(2A) of the Act. The petitioner had approached this court in Writ Petition No. 9105 of 2005 and in the meanwhile on 31/3/2005 had issued a cheque in favour of the Bank in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and agreed before this court to remit an additional amount of Rs.11,600/-, thus making up for the statutory requirement of 50% deposit so as to entertain the revision application. On that condition, this court on 18/1/2006 disposed of Writ Petition No. 9105 of 2005 by directing the revision application to be restored and heard by the Divisional Joint Registrar on its own merits and consequently the revision application came to be dismissed by the impugned order on merits. 3. Before the averments made by the learned counsel are considered, the chronology of events needs to be noted as under, after the Recovery Certificate :4: was issued on 29/1/2004:- . On 4/2/2004 the Recovery Officer issued notice under Section 107(3) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. On 21/2/2004 the Recovery Officer issued the attachment notice. On 15/11/2004 the property was attached by the Recovery Officer. On 4/2/2005 the District Deputy Registrar, Satara approved the upset price for the property under attachment. On 19/2/2005 public notice was issued for auction sale of immovable property. On 1/3/2005 the public notice for auction published in Daily "Aikaya" and on 3/3/2005 it was published in daily "Tarun Bharat". The auction was held on 12/3/2005 and sanction to the same was granted by the District Deputy Registrar on 31/3/2005. . Thus, by the time the revision application was filed by the petitioner, the auction sale had reached to its finality. It is not averred in the petition any where or even in the revision application that the notices issued by the Recovery Officer on 4/2/2004 and 21/2/2004 were not received by the petitioner. Even :5: during the auction sale, the petitioner had certain rights under the scheme of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules 1961 and he did not resort to any such remedies. Even on the day i.e. on 12/3/2005 the auction sale was held, the petitioner could have approached the Recovery Officer and made an application seeking permission to deposit the entire amount under the Recovery Certificate and prayed for cancelling the auction sale. No such steps were initiated by the petitioner and, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the ground regarding non service of notice while the certificate under Section 101 of the Act was issued cannot be allowed to be agitated while challenging the said certificate under the supervisory powers of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. So far as the quantum of the amount specified in the Recovery Certificate, nothing has been brought out to suggest that there was any error, either in the principal amount or in the calculation of the interest amount. The Divisional Joint Registrar has specifically noted that he went through the entire :6: proceeding before the Recovery Officer and the notice issued to the petitioner on 14/1/2004 was returned as not claimed. At the same time, the petitioner had borrowed another loan in the sum of Rs.1,70,000/- and he became the defaulter in the same as well and consequently one more Recovery Certificate of 24/6/2005 came to be issued against the petitioner. It is further noted that the petitioner remained present in the second proceeding. In the interregnum period, the petitioner did not take steps to challenge the Recovery Certificate issued on 29/1/2004 till the auction sale took place and the property now stands vested in favour of the auction purchaser by the process of law. 5. In these obtaining circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is perverse or it suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record. No case has been made out to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. :7: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)