(1) WP 4091.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4091 OF 2009 Dr. Chandrashekhar G. Karanjgaonkar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. A.R. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent no.3 None present for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 though served ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 12TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in the Petition is to the certificate issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the said Act”). There is alternate efficacious remedy available under section 154 of the said Act. The Petition cannot be entertained when such a Petition is filed with an objective of circumventing of an alternate remedy for the reason if such alternate remedy is undertaken then the (2) WP 4091.2009 compliance of condition to deposit 50% of the amount due is also required to be satisfied. The counsel for the petitioner submits that if all the details of the account and outstanding amount are made known to the petitioner, the settlement is possible. 3. In view of the availability of alternate efficacious remedy, the Petition is dismissed with direction that the amount deposited by the petitioner uptill the date either in this Court or with the bank shall be considered as compliance, may be full or in part, of the deposit that is required to be made under section 154(2-A) of the said Act. The amount so deposited in this Court by the petitioner be remitted to the revisional authority on intimation by the petitioner regarding the filing of the revision application and that in the meanwhile, the parties are at liberty to explore the possibility of the settlement. No coercive action to be taken by the respondents against the petitioner for period of two (2) months hereafter. No withdrawal to be allowed in the meanwhile. The time spent in this Court by the petitioner be considered for the purpose of (3) WP 4091.2009 condonation of delay under section 14 of the Limitation Act, if such revision application is filed and the delay may be condoned on account of litigating before the wrong forum and on sympathetic consideration. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp