1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6105 OF 2010 Sayad Alim Sayed Tamiz -: VERSUS :- Asstt. Registrar of Cooperative Soc. And others. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6108 OF 2010 Mohd. Shakil Abdul Gafur. -Versus- Asstt. Registrar of Cooperative Soc. And others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 22, 2010. Heard Adv. Badhe for petitioner and learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 6. Advocate Badhe has placed reliance upon the Division Bench Judgment of this court reported in 2004(4) Mh.L.J. Page 795 (Kausalya Sampat Vs. Vasant Sahakari Bank Ltd. and others.) particularly paragraph 13 to urge that in appropriate cases the requirement of pre-deposit can be waived and cognizance of revision filed under section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies act can be taken. He invites attention to facts of present case in order to demonstrate that petitioner has not received any loan amount from the respondent No.2 co-operative society. 2 Inquiry report is also pressed into service to demonstrate that alleged loan amount was directly disbursed to proprietor and the borrower did not get necessary articles/material. His contention, the bogus transactions are reported by Inquiry Officer and in the face of such inquiry report issuance of RRC against petitioner is arbitrary. Learned AGP has stated that amount can be refunded back to petitioner if they succeed in revision but mandatory provision cannot be allowed to be defeated in this situation. He also states that total amount of recovery is roughly more than eighteen thousand or twenty eight thousand. No doubt there is inquiry report but then that inquiry report mentions that instead of crediting the loan disbursed in the loan account of petitioner it was directly made over to proprietor. The correctness of that inquiry report and its impact can be gone into by revisional authority. Loan disbursed in W.P. no. 6105/2010 is Rs.12,500/- while in W.P. No. 6108 it is Rs. 17,990/-. The loan was alleged to be taken by petitioner for purchasing television sets. In this situation, it is apparent that the petitioners can safely deposit 50% of the amount as required by provisions of section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The amount can be refunded to them along with interest in case they succeed in their revision. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere at this stage in the matter. However, it is made 3 clear that this court has not made any observations on merits of contentions made by petitioner and all contentions are open for consideration of revisional authority. Both applications are accordingly disposed of. No costs. JUDGE. Hirekhan