1 Wp6231.10 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6231 OF 2010 Shri Shabbir Shamshuddin Shaikh & Others. .. Petitioners Vs Sahyadri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha & Ors. .. Respondents ­­ Shri A.M. Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Shri A.R. Shaikh for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. ­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st and the 2nd Respondents. A recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” ) was issued by the Deputy Registrar of the Co­operative Societies on 25th April, 2007. The recovery certificate was in the sum of Rs.5,49,468/­ with interest and costs thereon. 2. It is not in dispute that against the order granting recovery certificate, a Revision Application No. 361 of 2007 was filed by the Petitioners by invoking Section 154 of the said Act. The said Revision Application was rejected as the Petitioners failed to comply with the 2 Wp6231.10 mandatory requirement of Sub­section 2A of Section 154 of the said Act. 3. It appears that the Petitioners approached this Court against the said order. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition by an order dated 24th October, 2007 by directing that after the Petitioners deposit 50% of the amount with the 1st Respondent/Society, it will be open for the Petitioners to make appropriate prayer before the Revisional Authority. 4. Thereafter, on 5th June, 2010, another revision application was filed by the Petitioners. The first prayer was for setting aside the recovery certificate dated 25th April, 2007 and the second prayer was for quashing and setting aside the action of attachment dated 13th May, 2010 by the 2nd Respondent in execution of the recovery certificate. By the impugned order, the application for condonation of delay in filing the said revision application has been rejected. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that in respect of the second prayer for challenging an action of attachment made on 13th May, 2010, the revision application was within limitation. He invited attention of the Court to the notice dated 10th October, 2007 sent by the 1st Respondent to the 1st Petitioner in which it was stated that certain fixed deposits of the Petitioners have been attached and the 1st Petitioner was called upon to produce the said fixed deposit receipts. The learned counsel submitted that the Petitioners have no objection if the amount 3 Wp6231.10 payable under the fixed deposit receipts and the interest accrued thereon is adjusted towards the dues payable by the Petitioners as per the recovery certificate. He submitted that if the fixed deposit amounts are appropriated, the amount which remains balance is only Rs.24,979/­. He placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 31st July, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4657 of 2006 which was another petition filed by the 1st Petitioner. He submitted that instead of proceeding against the fixed deposits, the 1st Respondent has proceeded to attach business premises of the Petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that in any event as there was no delay as far as prayer for challenging action of attachment is concerned, and therefore, to that extent, the Revision ought to have been entertained. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions. As pointed out earlier, a revision application preferred by the Petitioners for challenging the recovery certificate dated 25th April, 2007 was dismissed as the Petitioners failed to comply with the requirements of Sub­section 2A of Section 154 of the said Act. Admittedly, the Petitioners did not avail of the benefit of the order passed by this Court in a writ petition by depositing 50% of the amount of the recoverable dues. Instead of depositing the amount in terms of the order of this Court, in June, 2010 the Petitioners have chosen to file a second revision application in which the substantive prayer is for challenging the same recovery certificate dated 25th April, 2007 which was challenged by filing earlier revision. As stated earlier, the 4 Wp6231.10 revision application preferred by the Petitioners against the same recovery certificate has been already rejected. The Petitioners could not have filed the second revision application. As far as the order of attachment is concerned, a remedy of raising an objection under Sub­rule 19 of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Rules, 1961 was available to the Petitioners. Therefore, in any case, the revision application against the order of attachment could not have been entertained especially when the order of attachment has been made in execution of the recovery certificate which has already become final. 7. On 10th October, 2007, the 1st Respondent/Bank had called upon the 1st Petitioner to surrender the fixed deposit receipts to enable the 1st Respondent to appropriate the amounts payable under the fixed deposit receipts towards the liability under the recovery certificate. However, the Petitioners replied to the said notice through their advocate and declined to produce the fixed deposit receipts. Now, it is too late in the day to make a grievance that the 1st and the 2nd Respondents should have appropriated the amount due under fixed deposit receipts. If the Petitioners surrender the fixed deposit receipts even as of today, it is always open for the 1st and 2nd Respondents to appropriate the amount payable under the receipts towards the amount due and payable under the recovery certificate. 8. Considering the aforesaid conduct of the Petitioners, this is not a case where writ jurisdiction can be allowed to be invoked. The 5 Wp6231.10 reliance placed by the Petitioners on the order of this Court dated 31st July, 2006 will not help the Petitioners as the said order relates to an another transaction between the parties. 9. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)