1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5532 OF 2009 Shirish s/o Krishna Burhade, Age: 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o. near Anil Tanpure Colony, Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner Versus The Rahuri Peoples Co-op. Bank Ltd. Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, Dist.Ahmednagar, Through its Manager & Ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. P.S. Pawar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Rahul Karpe, Advocate for Resp. Nos.1 & 2. Mr. N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for Resp. No. 3 & 4. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 24TH AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. With 2 the consent of both the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the notice dated 20-07-2009 issued by respondent No.2 for auction of the petitioner's property. 3. A few facts of the present case are as under. . Respondent No. 1 filed application on 25-11-2002 for recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. After hearing both the sides, on the said application, recovery certificate came to be issued on 08-01-2004. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision under Section 154 of the said Act in 2009. It is admitted fact that the petitioner failed to deposit 50% amount as required under Section 154 3 of the Act before the Joint Registrar, Nashik Division, Nashik. There is no stay order in the said revision. Respondent No.2 issued notice dated 20-07-2009 for auctioning the petitioner's property. Said auction is scheduled on 25-08-2009. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 state that as on today, they have to recover amount of Rs.13,27,000/- from the petitioner. I asked learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that whether the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit at least sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- by tomorrow with respondent Nos. 1 and 2. After taking instructions from his client, he shown inability to do so. 5. Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that though recovery certificate under Section 101 of the said Act was issued on 08-01-2004, the 4 petitioner failed to challenge the same immediately. Not only that, the petitioner has not paid any amount to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Considering these facts, I do not find any substance in the present Writ Petition and same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/AUG09/wp5532.09