ash 1 wp-4732.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4732 OF 2010 Mr. Francis Felix Fernandes. .. Petitioner Vs The Asstt. Registrar, Co-op.Societies and Others. .. Respondents -- Shri Makrand Panchakshari i/by Shri S.K. Shinde for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.S. Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 16TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. 2. On an application made by the second Respondent Bank, a recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) has been issued against the Petitioner and others. The recovery certificate has been issued for an amount of Rs.99,058/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the sum of Rs.37,509/- from 1st June, 2008. ash 2 wp-4732.10 3. In this Petition, the challenge is to the said recovery certificate. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that inspite of the repeated requests, the second Respondent did not grant inspection of the documents. Therefore, during the pendency of the application for grant of recovery certificate, a revision was preferred in which an order was passed directing the second Respondent to give inspection to the Petitioner of certain documents. The contention is that without complying with the said order, the recovery certificate has been issued. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that a remedy under Section 154 of the said Act is not an efficacious remedy as there is a breach of principles of natural justice. He submitted that the recovery certificate has been vitiated on account of breach of principles of natural justice. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. When this petition came up before this Court on 9th September, 2010, the following was the order passed. “Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Perused the order dated 23rd July, 2010. The office noting shows that the notice issued to Respondent No.2 is not received back. Learned counsel appearing ash 3 wp-4732.10 for the Petitioner states that affidavit of service is filed. None appears for the 2nd Respondent. In view of what is stated in the order dated 23rd July, 2010, the Petition will have to be admitted for final hearing. Prima facie, it appears that there is no dispute that a loan was advanced by the 2nd Respondent. Therefore, as a condition for grant of stay, considering the principal amount involved, the Petitioner will have to deposit a reasonable amount. 2. Hence, there will be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) subject to the Petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.45,000/- in this Court within a period of 12 weeks from today. If compliance is not made, stay will stand vacated. If compliance is made, it will be open for the 2nd Respondent to withdraw the said amount. 7. Admittedly, a compliance was not made by the Petitioner by depositing the requisite amount. Therefore, by an order dated 6th December, 2010, the prayer for interim relief was rejected. Thus, the Petitioner has not even deposited the principal amount. 8. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shireen Sami Dadiali & Anr. v. Spenta Co.op.Hsg.Soc. Ltd. & Ors., (2011(3)Bom.C.R.465), a revision application under Section 154 of the said Act is available as a matter of right. It cannot be said that the remedy under Section 154 of the said Act will not be an efficacious remedy available to the Petitioner. Moreover, considering the conduct of the Petitioner, he cannot be allowed to take recourse to the extra- ordinary remedy under the Constitution of India without exhausting the statutory remedy. ash 4 wp-4732.10 9. Hence, I pass the following order: - ORDER : (i) The Writ Petition is rejected; (ii) However, notwithstanding the rejection of the Writ Petition, it will be open for the Petitioner to file appropriate proceedings including a Revision Application under Section 154 of the said Act for challenging the recovery certificate; (iii) All contentions of the parties on merits of the recovery certificate are kept open; (iv) No orders as to costs. ( A.S. OKA, J )