1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 7084 OF 2008 Vijay s/o. Bandu Andhare - - Petitioner versus Special Recovery and Sales Officer, Maharashtra State Pat Sanstha Federation Ltd., Mumbai and others. - - - Respondents Shri B. S. Shinde, Advocate holding for Shri J. A. Dale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri R. R. Karpe, Advocate for Respondents Nos.1 and 3. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri S. K. Kadam, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent No.4. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 8th September 2009 PER COURT : 1. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order directing recovery of amount of Rs.4,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner towards the loan taken by one Vilas Shendge is not permissible in law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the steps are taken for recovery of the due amount from the 2 principal borrower, the action against the guarantor cannot be permissible. Learned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Mahajan v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 AIR SCW 4925. 2. Shri Karpe, appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 3, on the contrary submits that action is taken against petitioner after recovery certificate is issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Socities Act, 1960 in accordance with law. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Amravati Zilla Krishi Audyogik Sahakari Sangh Maryadit and others, 2004(4) Bom.C.R. 434, contention raised by the petitioner is without substance. 3. From the record, it is clear that recovery certificate was issued against principal borrower as also against guarantor. The said recovery certificate has been issued after giving notice to the petitioner. As such, we find that the contention of the petitioner is without substance in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of State Bank of India cited supra. It is further to be noted that aforesaid view has been taken in view of the judgment of the Apex 3 Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Indexport Registered reported in 1992 DGL S (Soft.) 352. In so far as judgment on which learned Counsel for the petitioner relies is concerned, the statutory provision which fell for consideration before the Court in the aforesaid matter specifically provides that unless property of the principal debtor was first sold, action against guarantor was not permissible. 4. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence petition is dismissed. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp708408