*1* wp.10080.10.916.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10080 OF 2010 Dhavalchandra Balkrishna Doshi and others. ..Petitioners ­Versus­ The Divisional Joint Registrar and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Uday Warunjikar, for the Petitioners. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Vishwanath Talkute, for the Respondent Nos.2 and 4. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 05th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard both sides. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar dismissing the revision application preferred by the Petitioners to challenge the recovery certificate issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960. 2 The recovery certificate has been issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co­operative Societies on 12.01.2010. The sum under the said certificate has been quantified at Rs.19,03,939/­ with further interest as set out therein. Various grounds have been set out in the memo of revision application to challenge the said certificate, but the said revision application has been rejected for want of compliance with Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960. *2* wp.10080.10.916.sxw 3 Mr.Warunjikar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits that firstly, the issuance of recovery certificate is vitiated inasmuch as a person issuing the said certificate is the Assistant Registrar, Co­operative Societies and this very Assistant Registrar, namely, J.P.Gawade has been appointed as an Administrator of Laxmi Co­operative Path Sanstha, Sangamnagar (Khed), Taluka & District : Satara. Therefore, he acted as a Judge in his own cause. Secondly, the Assistant Registrar could not have issued the said recovery certificate because there was injunction operating in favour of the Petitioners and against the said Path Sanstha granted by the competent Co­operative Court. In the teeth of this injunction order, the recovery certificate could not have been issued. 4 It is not necessary to enter into this controversy and particularly because there are disputes as to how much amount is due and payable to make good the requirement of deposit as contemplated by Section 154(2A). The Petitioners have filed the revision application to challenge this recovery certificate and the order made in that behalf. It is they who sought relief from the Divisional Joint Registrar, therefore, naturally the Divisional Joint Registrar insisted on compliance with the statutory provision of law. Once the statutory provision demands compliance before the revision application can be heard and decided on merits, then, only issue was how much sum constitutes 50% under the recovery certificate. The grievance of the Petitioners is that a sum of Rs.3 lacs was already deposited with the Path Sanstha on which interest must have been accumulated and the credit on such sum should be given and 50% amount should be computed on that basis. 5 Mr.Talkute, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4, submits that on affidavit it has been pointed out that no sum of Rs.3 lacs has been deposited nor there are Fixed Deposit receipts which *3* wp.10080.10.916.sxw could have been encashed by the Path Sanstha. Therefore, entire sum under the recovery certificate is due and payable. Admittedly, the amount under the recovery certificate due and payable is determined. 50% of the sum of Rs.19,03,939/­ should have been deposited. After earlier deposit still a sum of Rs.4.5 lacs is yet to be deposited and only thereafter, the revision can be considered. 6 According to Mr.Warunjikar, the amount of Rs.1.5 lacs at the most can be said to be deficit amount. 7 In my view the forum for deciding the said issue is not this Court. If the Petitioners are original applicants in Revision Application No. 77/2010 and they desire that the same be heard on merits and in accordance with law, then, at this stage, they are required to comply with the statutory provision and such compliance is always without prejudice to their rights and contentions to urge that the recovery certificate cannot be issued in law in the light of the injunction order of the Co­operative Court and further its issuance by the Assistant Registrar Mr.J.P.Gawade is vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice. 8 Keeping open all these contentions, the deficit amount as desired by the Path Sanstha can be directed to be deposited at this stage. Therefore, if the Petitioners deposit further sum of Rs.4.5 lacs within a period of two months from today, which deposit shall be treated as without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, then, the Divisional Joint Registrar shall decide the revision application on its own merits and in accordance with law. The revision application shall be decided expeditiously after deposit has been made. To enable the Petitioners to deposit the amount, ad­interim order dated 10.01.2011 staying further steps pursuant to the auction of the Petitioners’ properties, shall continue for a period of two months from today. Needless to clarify *4* wp.10080.10.916.sxw that it shall come to an end forthwith on expiry of the said period. If the deposit is made, the said order will continue till the hearing and final disposal of the revision application. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)