IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7732 OF 2008. M/s Mahakrushna Kirana Stores (Proprietary firm) through its Proprietor Hasmatrai Ramanmal Mandhani. .... PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. .... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri A.G. Talhar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents – State. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 06th AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT: 1. This petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 21st June, 2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik in Revision Petition No.10 of 2007. 2. The revision was filed by the respondent No.4 Bank before the Registrar challenging the order dated 6th January, 2006 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chalisgaon refusing to issue Recovery Certificate in favour of the Bank. In the revision filed by the Bank, the revisional authority has remanded the matter back to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon for fresh consideration by his order dated 21st June, 2008, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to page 28 of the petition and submitted that the said Exh.E clearly shows that outstanding amount towards the present petitioner is 0.00 and therefore, there was no necessity of remanding the matter back to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon for fresh consideration. According to the learned Counsel, there is no scope for the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies to go beyond the provisions of Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and recovery certificate has to be issued on the basis of statement of accounts and accordingly, the Assistant Registrar has already declined to issue certificate under Section 101 of the said Act to the Bank and, therefore, the order in revision is not sustainable. The learned Counsel further submitted that once the Assistant Registrar declined to issue certificate under Section 101 of the said Act after proper inquiries, there cannot be further inquiries and hence, the order in the revision remanding the matter back requires to be set aside. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent supported the reasons given in the revisional order and submitted that the petitioner is not prejudiced by remanding the matter to the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies for fresh consideration. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 and the learned A.G.P. for the State, I am of the considered view that the revisional authority has given sufficient reasons while remanding the matter back to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies to make further inquiries under Section 101 of the said Act and take appropriate decision. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik, in paragraphs 8 and 9 held as under: “8. On going through the observations made by Assistant Registrar in his impugned order dated 06/01/2006, I find that Assistant Registrar has not properly scrutinized and considered original loan documents as well as statement of extracts of accounts of respondent Nos.1 to 3 as maintained by applicant bank. The inferences drawn by Assistant Registrar in respect of contradiction in loan amounts are not correct and proper, which has created difficulties for recovery of loan amounts from defaulting members. Assistant Registrar should consider recovery proceedings submitted by applicant bank on its own merits. 9. In the light of above observations it is desirable to protect the funds of depositors / members which are public moneyat large, hence this matter requires to be remanded back for fresh trial and hearing in respect of recovery proceedings filed by applicant bank before Assistant Registrar. Assistant Registrar is directed to scrutinize and verify entire original loan documents of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and after due verification of the same, appropriate and suitable orders may be issued in the subject matter according to the provisions of the M.C.S. Act, 1960.” 6. The first submission of the learned Counsel that the Exh.E to the petition i.e. extract of bank account shows that outstanding amounts are nil was not taken before the Divisional Joint Registrar and, therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to canvas the said point. However, it will be open for the petitioner to agitate this point before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon. The second point of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the certificate can only be issued taking into account the statement of accounts can be gone into by the Assistant Registrar. It is needless to mention that while entertaining the proceedings of the Bank afresh, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon will abide by the provisions of section 101 of the said Act. In my considered view, the reasons assigned by the revisional authority in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment, which are reproduced herein before, were sufficient to remand the matter back to the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Jalgaon. It will be open for the parties to raise all contentions before the Assistant Registrar. 7. In view of the above, writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ...