vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.900 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.900 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.900 OF 2009 Medha S. Talwar & anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Mira Mansion Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.C. Dixit for Petitioners Ms.S.Bhendey, AGP, for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 21, 2009 APRIL 21, 2009 APRIL 21, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional authority confirming the recovery certificate issued against the petitioners. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that Respondent No.3 while issuing the recovery certificate has not observed the guidelines which have been issued by the Government from time to time for the parties to observe while issuing certificates u/s 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. it is also contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the authority has not taken into consideration the fact that no resolution was passed for levy of taxes and other amounts on the petitioners and without verifying of the records, the authority has issued a certificate under section 101 of the Act. 3. When pointed out by the learned advocate for Respondent No.1 that the petitioners had not raised any : 2 : objections to the application filed by Respondent No.1 for issuance of a certification u/s 101, the learned advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Respondent No.4 to issue the certificate because according to them, it was only the Divisional Joint Registrar who could issue such a certificate as the Assistant Registrar had been informed telephonically by the Divisional Joint Registrar that a certificate ought not to have been issued by him and the matter should be transferred to his superior officer. 4. A notice was issued by this Court to respondent No.5 who is present in Court and he has filed an affidavit denying all the allegations made against him personally in the petition. He has denied the telephonic conversation and the fact that any instructions were given to him regarding the transfer of the case from him. An affidavit has been filed by one Sheshrao P. Sangle, presently working as Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune and was at the relevant time Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. He has denied that any orders were passed either in writing or orally directing Respondent No.5 not to consider the case of the petitioner since the matter has been transferred to the District Deputy Registrar. The affiant has stated that administrative : 3 : directions were issued after hearing the appeals on 26.8.2002. However, no order regarding transfer was passed. However, the petitioners have annexed a letter which according to them, was written immediately after the orders were passed indicating that in fact Respondent No.3 had passed an order directing Respondent No.5 not to pass any orders in the matter as the matter would be transferred to the District Deputy Registrar. 5. In my opinion, there is no need to go into this controversy at all. Section 101 of the Act empowers the Assistant Registrar to make an enquiry in the prescribed manner and grant a certificate for recovery of the amount stated in the application, after following proper procedure. The Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies has been delegated with that power to issue a certificate under section 101 of the Act. Therefore, once such a delegation is there, then the Assistant Registrar may act accordingly and pass necessary orders. Since the Assistant Registrar is vested with the power to pass an order u/s 101, the question of the matter being transferred to the Deputy Registrar does not arise. Moreover, the authorities in the case have stated categorically in the affidavits filed that no such order of transferring the matter was passed. There is no material to the contrary and therefore their statements are accepted. : 4 : 6. As regards merits of the case, the Petitioners have contended that the respondent Society had not placed on record material to indicate how the amount was payable to the society by the petitioners. The certificate has been issued on 26.8.2002. Thereafter the petitioners have filed a revision application before the Divisional Joint Registrar. That revision application was filed in 2004 and has been dismissed on 9.5.2008. While filing the revision application, the petitioners had deposited 50% of the amount payable in accordance with section 154(2)(A) of the Act. Today, the entire amount has been deposited by the petitioners with the respondents. The only contention of the petitioners seems to be that the authorities have not considered the objections raised by the petitioners. However, on a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Petitioners had not raised any objections when the recovery certificate was issued u/s 101. Therefore, they cannot in a revision raise objections which were not raised before the first authority. In my view, the petition is misconceived and must be rejected. 7. The affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5 is perused and the statements made therein are, in my view, sufficient to explain the actions taken by him. : 5 : 8. Petition is rejected.