( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3718 OF 2008 1. Abdul Aleem Abdul Rauf, R/o Gadipura, Parbhani, District Parbhani. 2. Smt. Julekhabegum w/o Abdul Rauf, R/o Gadipura, Parbhani. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Assistant Registrar, Co­op. Societies, Parbhani. 2. The Special Recovery Officer, The Parbhani Peoples Co­op. Bank Ltd., Parbhani, Neharu Road, Parbhani. 3. The Official Liquidator, The Parbhani Peoples Co­op. Bank Ltd., Parbhani, Neharu Road, Parbhani. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Shailendra Gangakhedkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.V. Tele, AGP for respondent No. 1/State. Mr. S.V. Mundhe, advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 10th June, 2009] ( 2 ) PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 2. The petitioners challenge legality and propriety of recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “the MCS Act”) by the learned Assistant Registrar in favour of the respondents No. 2 and 3. The petitioners are the borrower and guarantor in respect of the loan advanced by the Parbhani People’s Cooperative Bank Ltd., Parbhani. The Assistant Registrar made inquiry and issued certificate in question on the basis of proposal submitted by the Bank. 3. Short question for consideration is whether the learned Assistant Registrar issued the certificate under section 101 of the MCS Act, as required under the relevant rules. The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies ( 3 ) Rules, 1961 (for short, “the MCS Rules”) have been amended by the Government as per the notification dated 18th May, 2007. The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (First Amendment) Rules, 2007 provide for the procedure for grant of recovery certificate under section 101. These Rules are required to be followed by the competent authority. The procedure for hearing of the application is stated in Rule 86­E. Rule 86­F mandates that the Registrar is required to pass a reasoned judgement and order for the grant or rejection of the application. So, an order rendered without ascribing any reason is unsustainable. For, it would be against the spirit of Rule 86­F. In the present case, the impugned certificate is not backed by a reasoned judgement and order. There is nothing on record to show that both the parties were heard and the contentions of the petitioners were dealt with by the learned Assistant Registrar. Considering the deficiency noticed, the impugned certificate deserves to be quashed. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned recovery certificate is quashed. The Rule is ( 4 ) made absolute. The Assistant Registrar shall, however, decide the matter afresh on merits by giving due opportunity to both the sides. All the contentions are kept open. The parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Registrar on 13th June, 2009 and the Assistant Registrar shall decide the proposal/application of the Bank within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP3718­08