1 wp-7264-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7264 OF 2010 M/s.Super Soaps (Goa) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors...Petitioners Vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai & Ors. ....Respondents Mr. R.V. Govilkar, for the petitioner. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr.Bhupesh V. Samant for respondent No.4. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Govilkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Two different recovery certificates under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, came to be issued by the respondent No.2, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The first recovery certificate bearing No.393 dated 13th October, 2008 was for an amount of Rs. 1,12,64,701/- and the second recovery certificate issued on the same day bearing No.3931 of 2007 was for an amount of Rs.64,46,520/-. Both these 2 wp-7264-10 recovery certificates have been challenged by filing Revision Application No.357 of 2009 and 36 of 2009 respectively. As per the petitioners contention,on 12th March, 2009 the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, before whom these Revision Applications have been filed, has passed a stay order on these recovery certificates. However, by an order dated 15th July, 2010 the Revision Application No.357 of 2009 came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners failed to deposit the statutory payment of 50%. Whereas Revision Application No.36 of 2009 is pending. 2. If the Revision Application has been dismissed for non-compliance of the statutory provision of deposit of 50% the petitioners will have to approach the Revisional Authority by depositing the 50% of the amount under recovery and pray for restoration of the Revision Application. If the Revisional Authority passes an order against the petitioners in the pending Revision Application or refuses to restore the dismissed Revision Application the petitioners remedy will be to approach the learned Single Judge. At this stage it would not be permissible to entertain any arguments against the recovery certificates or any failure on the part of respondent No.2 to consider the alleged non-reading or misreading of the master 3 wp-7264-10 circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India on Income Recognition, Asset Classification, Provisioning and Other Related Matters. 3. We are, therefore, not inclined to show our indulgence under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution at this stage and all the issues agitated before us can be efficaciously agitated either in the pending Revision Applications or before the learned Single Judge as and when the occasion arises. 4. Hence the petition is rejected and it is clarified that we have not gone into the merits of the arguments advanced before us or the grounds raised in the petition regarding the illegality in the recovery certificates. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)