WP Nos. 8461/10 & connected matters. 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WP/8461/2010 WITH WP/8462/2010 WITH WP/8463/2010 WITH WP/8464/2010 WITH WP/8465/2010 WITH WP/8466/2010 WITH WP/8467/2010 WITH WP/8468/2010 WITH CA/12931/2010 WITH WP/8471/2010 WITH WP/10004/2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. S.T. Ghute, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.G.P. for R. 1 & 2. Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for R. 3 & 4. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 24th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Petitioners have approached this Court with contention that they have never borrowed any loan from Sanjivani Urban Co-operative Society, Parbhani. It is not in dispute that presently affairs of said society are entrusted to respondent No. 4 - Co-operative Bank. 2. Shri. S.T. Ghute has pointed out that there are police complaints and prosecution is pending against the erstwhile Directors of Sanjivani Urban Co-operative Society, as they have prepared false records of loan disbursement. He contends that no proper opportunity was extended to petitioners by respondent No. 2 - Assistant Registrar in spite of directions by Co-operative Department. He further states that seeking independent inquiry into the state of affairs, writ petition has been filed before the Division Bench and the same is pending. 3. Learned A.G.P. invited my attention to reply affidavit to urge that petitioners were given requisite opportunity. WP Nos. 8461/10 & connected matters. 2 4. Shri. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 points out that Chairman of Sanjivani Urban Co-operative Society is no more and respondent No. 4 - Bank has been entrusted with affairs of the said society recently. He fairly states that respondent No. 4 - Bank has got no personal grudge against the petitioners and there only effort is to find out whether any loan is disbursed to them or not. He, for that purpose, invites attention to reply affidavit filed before this Court to show that independent inquiry has been conducted by the Co-operative Officer Mr. Yadav and he has submitted his report on 21.10.2009. 5. With the assistance of respective counsel, I have perused the papers. 6. It appears that Mr. Yadav has looked into 24 loan cases and records made available by respondent No. 4. He has noticed promissory note, pay slips, undertaking for deduction from salary, necessary authorization and affidavit under section 49 (1) of Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act. He has found all papers in order. Then he has noticed that loan was disbursed by drawing cheque and by depositing it into personal account of borrower and the amounts have been withdrawn by the respective borrower from such accounts. The withdrawal receipts are also found bearing signatures of the borrowers. 7. The borrowers are disputing their signature and contend that signatures have been made either by the Directors or by their men and are not binding upon the borrowers. The report of Shri. Yadav also shows that there is no reference to any resolution or to the metting of Managing Committee in which the loan proposals have been WP Nos. 8461/10 & connected matters. 3 sanctioned. 8. The facts therefore show that Mr. Yadav has looked into records, which according to the petitioners are fabricated. If there was an agreement to permit the employer of petitioners' to deduct loan and to pay that amount directly to Sanjivani Urban Co-operative Society, what has happened to that agreement and whether concerned employer has at any point of time in exercise of that obligation, already effected deductions and made it over to Sanjivani Urban Co-operative Bank is therefore a crucial fact. Mr. Yadav has not investigated into that fact. If there is any such deduction, it is apparent that the stand of petitioner about non disbursement of loan cannot be accepted. I, therefore, find that the material aspect has not been looked into by Mr. Yadav. 9. In the circumstances, the respondent No. 2 - Assistant Registrar is directed to hold fresh inquiry into the matter to find out correctness or otherwise of the claim of the petitioners and to verify from concerned records with relevant employer and with the Sanjivani Society, whether the loan or any part thereof has at any point of time been repaid by the petitioners. 10. Only for the said purposes, the further execution of recovery certificate issued by respondent No. 2 is stayed. 11. Petitioners and respondent No. 4 are directed to appear before the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of such inquiry on 9th March 2011 and to abide by his further instructions/directions in the matter. The respondent No. 2 shall hold such inquiry after giving necessary opportunity to petitioners and pass appropriate orders on said stand of WP Nos. 8461/10 & connected matters. 4 petitioners as early as possible and in any case by 30th of April 2011. 12. With liberty to petitioners to challenge that order, if same is found adverse by them, present petitions are disposed of. No costs. 13. In view of disposal of petitions, civil applications, if any, do not survive and stand disposed of. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ] ssc/wp8461.10