1 wp4103-99j rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4103 OF 1999 Anand Co-op. Hsg.Soc. Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s. C. S. Swaminathan & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Anilkumar Patil for the petitioner. Ms.Neha Bhide 'B' Panel Counsel for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : This was a petition fixed on the final hearing board which was adjourned till today. Taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner society made an application for grant of Recovery Certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The Recovery Certificate was issued by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In a Revision, there was an order of remand passed and the application was ordered to be reconsidered by the Deputy Registrar. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar again issued Recovery Certificate which was subjected to challenge by the first respondent for filing a Revision Application under Section 2 wp4103-99j 154 of the said Act. By the impugned order, the Recovery Certificate has been set aside. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even assuming that the reasons recorded by the Revisional Authority are correct, the proceedings for Recovery Certificate could not have been closed and the only logical order which could have been passed was an order of remand. None appears for the first respondent. I have heard the learned AGP for the second respondent. 4. I have perused the reasons recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar while deciding the Revision Application filed by the first respondent. The first ground for setting aside the Recovery Certificate is that the Deputy Registrar has not passed a speaking order. The second ground is that the petitioner had not given credit for the amount of Rs.9,000/- deposited by the first respondent pursuant to the directions given in the earlier Revision Application. The third ground is that there was negligence on the part of the Deputy Registrar in issuing the Recovery Certificate. 5. The Revisional Authority has not recorded any finding on merits to the effect that the petitioner is disentitled to claim any amount from the first respondent. There is no finding recorded that considering the dispute/question involved, the petitioner 3 wp4103-99j should take recourse to Section 91 of the said Act. It is true that reasons were not assigned by the Deputy Registrar while issuing the Recovery Certificate. The Revisional Authority could have remanded the matter for reconsideration. The result of the impugned order is that the claim made by the petitioner stands rejected without any adjudication on merits. In the circumstances, the final order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar will have to be modified by directing that the application for grant of Recovery Certificate shall be heard and decided afresh by passing a reasoned order. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: i. The operative part of the impugned order is modified. ii. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kalyan Taluka, Kalyan shall decide the application made by the petitioner for grant of Recovery Certificate under Section 101 of the said Act afresh in the light of the observations made by the Divisional Joint Registrar in the impugned order. iii. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, 4 wp4103-99j Kalyan Taluka, Kalyan shall decide the application after hearing the parties by passing a reasoned order. The order shall be made expeditiously. iv. Rule is partly made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)