(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1051 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1052 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 1051 OF 2011 Shri Anantrao Laxman Deshpande, Age : 77 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Anant Wadi, Jamner, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Sureshdada Jain Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Jamner, R/o. Main Road, Jamner, District : Jalgaon (through Secretary / Manager of the Society). 2. The Special Recovery Officer and Sales Officer, Sureshdada Jain Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Jamner, R/o. Main Road, Jamner, Taluka : Jamner, District : Jalgaon. 3. The State of Maharashtra, The Ministry of Cooperative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. (2) 4. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Department, Nasik Division, Nasik. 5. The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. 6. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jamner, Taluka : Jamner, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ....................... WRIT PETITION NO. 1052 OF 2011 Shri Madhav Anantrao Deshpande, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Anant Wadi, Jamner, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Sureshdada Jain Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Jamner, R/o. Main Road, Jamner, District : Jalgaon (through Secretary / Manager of the Society). (3) 2. The Special Recovery Officer and Sales Officer, Sureshdada Jain Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Jamner, R/o. Main Road, Jamner, Taluka : Jamner, District : Jalgaon. 3. The State of Maharashtra, The Ministry of Cooperative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 4. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Department, Nasik Division, Nasik. 5. The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. 6. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jamner, Taluka : Jamner, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ........................ Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate, for the petitioners in both petitions. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2 in both petitions. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.3 to 6 in both petitions. ************** (4) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15TH MARCH 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, appearing for the petitioners; Adv. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2, and learned Addl. G.P. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, appearing for respondent nos.3 to 6. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 3. As issues involved in both petitions, concerning law and facts, are same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. This Court had issued notice because of apprehension of the petitioners and bona fide shown by offering to deposit the amount, on 11th February 2011. 5. During hearing, Adv. Mr. Bhokarikar has pointed out that amount in RRC against each of the petitioners is roughly Rs. 5,57,000/- and the petitioners have deposited amount of Rs. (5) 2,00,000/- each, with the Society and then further amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- each, with the Registry of this Court. He contends that only dispute is about charging exorbitant rate of interest in arbitrary fashion. According to him, therefore, this grievance must be looked into by this Court as the revisional authority is acting hand in glove with respondent nos.1 and 2. He also wants this Court to consider his allegations against the said authority in the present matter. 6. Adv. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, for respondent nos.1 and 2, and learned Addl. G.P. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, for respondent nos.3 to 6, have denied any collusion and they contend that steps in accordance with law have been taken. Adv. Mr. Katneshwarkar states that amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- each, deposited with the Registry of this Court, must be allowed to be withdrawn by respondent nos.1 and 2 / Society. He further contends that grievance, if any, in relation to rate of interest or mode and manner of its calculation can be looked into by the revisional authority. He prays for expeditious disposal of the revisions subject to amount being withdrawn by the Society. 7. Adv. Mr. Bhokarikar, for the petitioners, points out that even during pendency of revisions, respondent nos.1 and 2 had proceeded to take coercive steps against the petitioners. His (6) effort is to demonstrate to this Court, persecution of the petitioners by highhanded actions of the respondents. 8. At this stage, I am not inclined to examine the allegations of highhanded action or collusion. The demand of loan and its repayment including calculation of interest are simple questions and can be looked into by this Court at appropriate juncture. There cannot be normally any persecution in such matters. However, if there is any deliberate mischief, the same can also be noticed by this Court. As the petitioners have shown their bona fides by depositing Rs. 3,75,000/- each, I am also not straightway rejecting allegation of the petitioners regarding persecution. The same is kept open for adjudication at appropriate juncture. 9. In the result, the petitions are partly allowed. (i) Respondent nos.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw Rs. 1,75,000/-, deposited by each of the petitioners with the Registry of this Court. The withdrawal shall be subject to further orders to be passed by the revisional authority, namely, respondent no. 4, in revisions pending before it. If the revisions are allowed and petitioners are found entitled to any refund from Society, respondent no.1 shall refund that amount to the petitioners (7) within a period of three weeks after such adjudication. (ii) The proceedings in pending revisions are expedited. The revisional authority shall consider grievance of the petitioners impartially and fairly and write reasoned order revealing application of mind. The said authority shall attempt to decide the revisions as early as possible and in any case, within a period of two months after parties appear before it. Parties are directed to appear before that authority on 8th April 2011 and abide by its further instructions in the matter. (iii) Till the revisions are decided, respondent nos.1 and 2 shall not take any coercive steps for alleged recovery against the petitioners. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. 11. Certified Copy expedited. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1051etc