1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW PETITION NO. 109 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1267 OF 2009 Chandrakant S/o Madhukar Petare, Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Main Road Yawal, District Jalgaon. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Grahnirman Bhawan IIIrd Floor, Gadkari Chowk, Nasik, District Nasik. 3. The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ist Floor, Administrative Building, collectorate Office, Jalgaon. 4. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti, Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 5. Pankaj S/o Shrawan Sonar, Age : 31 Years, Occ. : Chairman, Kalika Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Yawal, District Jalgaon. .. .. Respondents 2 Shri D. K. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, A. G. P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 12TH AUGUST, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri D. K. Kulkarni learned counsel for the petitioner (Original petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1267/2009) and Shri N. B. Patil learned A. G. P. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 02nd May, 2009 passed by this Court. Said order was passed after hearing both the sides i. e. learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Shri V. B. Ghatge for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 3. Perused the order dated 02nd May, 2009. At the outset it was mentioned in the writ petition No. 1267/2009 that writ of mandamus in respect of notice issued by respondent No. 5, the then recovery officer is challenged. They were mainly the demand notices for recovery by the society against the petitioner and his family members. Subsequently it reveals that the original respondent No. 5 Pankaj Shrawan Sonar was already removed as Administrator and the said appointment and all acts done by him as Administrator were under challenge in the said petition. It is also mentioned that, in his 3 place new recovery officer came to be appointed. 4. Admittedly, petitioner is apprehending recovery pursuant to alleged demand notice Exhibit "C" issued under Section 107 (3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, issued under the signature of respondent No. 5 was absent deeds have been challenged in the said petition. It is also mentioned in the order dated 02nd May, 2009, that the new recovery officer may proceed against the petitioner, if there are any recoverable dues from the petitioner and his family members and if petitioner so desire, he may file separate petition taking grounds that the earlier demand notice for recovery of the dues by respondent No. 5/the then recovery officer were illegal, void and unsustainable in law by joining the society as party respondent together with the recovery officer whenever action arises. The petition which came to be disposed of by order dated 02nd May, 2009 was against the recovery shown in Exhibit "C" of the society and not of the recovery officer/respondent No. 5 in his personal capacity. 5. With these observations and liberty is granted as aforesaid, the review application stands rejected and accordingly disposed of. Shri N. B. Patil, learned A. G. P. for the respondents No. 1 to 4 has no grievance or objection for such liberty. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/August 09