-: 1 :- wp-10546/09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10546 OF 2009 Ved Testiles Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner. Versus Sangli Urban Co­operative Bank Ltd. & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. B. Deshmukh a/w Prathmesh Bhargude for the petitioner. Mr. N. V. Walawalkar, senior advocate a/w Mr. G. H. Keluskar for respondent no.1. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for respondent nos .2. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 27, 2010. P. C. : 1. Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Additional Registrar under section 148(3) of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short “the MCS Act”] refusing sanction to prosecute the office bearers of respondent no.1­bank, for the alleged offence committed under section 146(g) of the MCS Act. 2. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the order dated 12th May 2003 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. K­109/2002, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Kolhapur, directed respondent no.1­bank to settle the petitioner's loan account under One srp -: 2 :- wp-10546/09 Time Settlement Scheme (OTS scheme) as per the proposal submitted by the petitioner. Inspite of this order respondent no.1 willfully neglected and refused to take action as per the said order. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that respondent–bank has committed offence as stated above. Mr. Walavalkar, learned senior counsel, on the contrary, submitted that above order of the Divisional Joint Registrar was modified by this Court by its order dated 9th December 2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 6740 of 2003. He further submitted that the order passed in the said writ petition is complied with and therefore there is no question of any offence. 3. I have perused the Divisional Joint Registrar’s order as well as the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6740 of 2003. The Divisional Joint Registrar directed respondent­bank to settle the petitioner’s loan account under OTS scheme as per the proposal submitted by them. Respondent no.1, being aggrieved by the order of Registrar, filed W.P. No. 6740 of 2003 in this Court, and this writ petition was disposed of on 9th December 2005 by passing following order : “The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the proposal submitted by respondent no.1 will be considered in accordance with the scheme of OTS as published by RBI and an appropriate decision will be taken within four week whether the same is eligible or not for OTS scheme. In that view of the matter, the -: 3 :- wp-10546/09 present petition does not survive. Petition is disposed of accordingly.” 4. A perusal of the above order makes it clear that the liberty was given by this Court to respondent no.1 bank to consider petitioner's proposal in accordance with the OTS scheme as published by RBI and to take appropriate decision within four weeks. Pursuant to this order, respondent no.1–bank considered the petitioner’s proposal and rejected the same within the period stipulated by this Court, as the said proposal was not in accordance with the OTS scheme published by the RBI. In the light of these facts and circumstances, I do not find any substance in the case of the petitioner that respondent no.1–bank has committed any offence under section 146(g) of the MCS Act. I find that the Additional Registrar upon consideration of these aspects, has arrived at a correct conclusion. I do not see any reason so as to enable me to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)