1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5579 OF 2011 Sou Saroj Bhagwan Shinde .... Petitioners & Ors. Vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar .... Respondents Co-op. Society, Kolhapur & Ors. Mr. Amit Sale Advocate, for petitioners. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Harshad Shingapurkar i/by Mr. Amit Borkar for respondent no.3. Coram : A.S. OKA, J. Date : 20th September, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned AGP appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. Considering the factual controversy involved, the writ petition is taken up forthwith for final disposal. 3. On the application made by the 3rd respondent, a recovery 2 certificate under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) was granted against the petitioners in the sum of Rs.16,80,510/- with interest thereon at the rate of 11.5% from 1st December 2008. A Revision Application under Section 154 of the said Act was preferred by the petitioners before the learned Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies by invoking Section 154 of the said Act. Compliance was made by the petitioners by depositing 50% of the recoverable dues. By the impugned judgment and order, the Revision Application has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order records no reasons. He urged that by a cryptic order, a statutory revision application has been rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and the learned AGP supported the impugned judgment and order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. The impugned judgment and order is cryptic, which runs only into one page. In the third and fourth paragraphs of the impugned order, the learned Divisional Joint Registrar has recorded submissions of the petitioners and the third respondent. In the last paragraph of the impugned order, the learned Joint Registrar has observed thus: 3 “I have gone through the contents of the application and submissions of rival parties. It is observed from the roznama that the applicant has availed sufficient opportunity of hearing before opponent no.1 and thereafter, opponent no.1 has issued recovery certificate. I do not find any reason to interfere with recovery certificate”. 6. Apart from the fact that no reasons have been recorded, even the specific submission recorded in the impugned order based on the interim order of the Co-operative Court has not been considered. A statutory Revision Application challenging a drastic order of issue of a recovery certificate has been dismissed in such a summary manner without recording reasons. The impugned order shows non application of mind by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar. Hence, the only order, which can be passed in this petition is an order of remand. Hence, I pass following order. O R D E R 1. The impugned judgment and order dated 20th June 2011 is quashed and set aside and Revision Application No.280 of 2010 is restored to file of the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Kolhapur 2. The Divisional Joint Registrar shall hear and decide the Revision Application afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment. The Divisional Joint Registrar shall record 4 reasons while deciding the Revision Application. 3. The Revision Application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible. 4. Ad-interim relief granted by 20th July 2011 shall continue to operate till the final disposal of the Revision Application. 5. The Writ Petition is partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. (A.S. Oka, J)