1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4287 of 2010 (Dr. Madhukar Sahadeo Tembhurne v. Dy. Registrar, Sahakari Sanstha, Bhandara, and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order S/Shri R.D. Dharmadhikari and A.V. Muley, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri Mujumdar, AGP for Respondent No.1. Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 20 th October, 2010 This petition challenges the recovery certificates issued on 29-5-2009 in Case Nos.44, 45 and 46/08-09 by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The notice in this matter was issued on 1-9-2010. In response to that, Shri Mujumdar, the learned AGP appears for respondent No.1, and Shri Puranik, the learned counsel appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The preliminary objection to entertain this petition has been raised on the ground that there exists a statutory alternate remedy available under Section 154 of the Maharashtra 2 Co-operative Societies Act by way of filing revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and in view of this provision, the petition is required to be dismissed on the ground that there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the certificates have been issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act without issuing notices to the petitioner and it is for this purpose the notice was issued by this Court on 1-9-2010 to ascertain the factual position. An affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Registrar on 5-10-2010 stating therein that after receipt of of the application for grant or revenue recovery certificate, the answering respondent issued notices not only to the petitioner, but also to the guarantor. It is further stated that in response to the notice, the wife of the petitioner, viz. Sau. Kalpana Madhukar Tembhurne, who is the guarantor, was also present on behalf of the petitioner as well as for herself before the answering the respondent on 6-4-2009 and 20-4-2009. Hence, it is stated that the petitioner was knowing fully well that the notices were issued. Shri Mujumdar, the learned AGP appearing for respondent No.1, has also produced the acknowledgments of the petitioner in respect of service of notices by RPAD. It is, therefore, submitted that the notices have been duly served upon the petitioner and the grievance in that respect is not substantiated. 3 Shri Dharmadhikari has relied upon the provision of Rule 86B(4) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, which is reproduced below : “86B. Scrutiny of applications and notice to parties (4) On registering the application the Registrar shall, within fifteen days, issue a notice to the opponent requiring him to file his written statement on the day, date and place as specified in the notice. Such notice shall be served by registered post acknowledgment due or if the opponent could not be easily found by publication thereof in atleast one local daily newspaper. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall, mutatis mutandis apply to such public notice.” According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the notice has to be served by RPAD. He disputes the signatures on the acknowledgments produced by the learned AGP. The question whether there is a compliance of Rule 86B(4) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, reproduced above, is a disputed question of fact. Whether the acknowledgments are signed by the petitioner or not, is also required to be gone into. In view of this, the adjudication will have to be made whether the service of notice by RPAD is mandatory, whether the petitioner has been served with the notices, and whether there is a substantial compliance of Rule 86B(4) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules. All these disputed questions cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy of filing revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co- 4 operative Societies Act. The petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of existence of alternate remedy. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. Judge pdl