1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 436 OF 2007 Ravikumar Dattatray Ganpule ........Appellant versus Shree Hanuman Sahakari Dughda Sanstha Maryadit ........ Respondent. Mr. M.S. Lagu adv. for the Appellant Mr. R.S. Ghadge i/b. A.S. Desai adv. for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The present appellant is the original Plaintiff who instituted a suit for recovery of an amount of about 61,000/- against the respondent society as audit fees on the ground that pursuant to an order passed by the District Special Auditor, he had carried out the audit. According to the appellant, under various Government Circulars, it has been directed that when the District Special Auditor directs an audit of the society, the society is expected to bear the expenses for audit. The said circualrs were not placed on record. Leaving aside the question as to whether the same would be enforceable at law or otherwise, respondent had pleaded that a money decree in favour of the plaintiff could be granted only if there exists a contract between the two parties or if the statute so 2 requires. It is undisputed in the present case that there is no previty of contract in between the appellant and the respondent which fastans the liability of the audit fee of the society. In this view of he matter the trial court has dismissed the suit and the first appeal directed against the same having been dismissed the second appeal has been filed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to point out that Rule 74 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act authorises the registrar to levy audit charges and supervision charges payable annually by the societies at such rate as may be fixed by him with the approval of the State. The said rule itself provides for non payment of the audit charges. The rule lays down that such charges, if not paid by specified date, the same shall be recoverable under seb section 2 of section 155. If this be so, it is crystal clear that the authority empowered to levy the charges is the only authority who can direct recovery of the amount under section 155. The said rule does not provide for a remedy by way fo suit for an auditor to claim the charges from the society. 3. No substantial question of law emerges for consideration. Hence there being no merit the appeal stands dismissed. 3 (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)