( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2008 Ravindra Maharu Patil PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Miss S.S. Bhalkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Bagul, advocate for respondent No. 4. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 13th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is borrower of the respondent No. 4 Bank. He challenges recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. His chief contention is that he had availed loan of only rupees three (3) lacs in the ( 2 ) year 2001. But behind his back, it was shown as revived and excessive amounts are shown to be outstanding against him. He asserts that he had not taken such loan from the Bank and the recovery is bad in law because he was not given copies of the documents pertaining tot he subsequent loans. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given opportunity of cross-examination. It is further argued that the impugned order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, is illegal and bad in law. 3. What transpires on perusal of the impugned order is that the petitioner disputed the quantum on the ground that the relevant documents were not received by him and he had not executed the mortgage-deed and other documents which were produced on record. The borrowers did not dispute the said documents nor had replied the notices of demand. It is contended that because the petitioner had lodged a complaint against the Chairman of the Cooperative Bank, false record was drawn to frame him and on basis of such record, the certificate under section 101 is issued. The petition reveals that ( 3 ) disputed questions of facts are involved. Whether the documents were fabricated or not is a disputed question. Alternate remedy under section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act is available. In view of availability of efficacious remedy, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 4. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, the civil application No. 5546/2008 does not survive and hence, it stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP3466-08