1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.414 OF 2011 (Purushottam Kothiramji Bhure vs. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.K. Tambde, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.W. Sambre, Government Pleader for the respondent no.1. ------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 16, 2011 The above petition takes exception to the recovery certificate dated 26/7/2006 issued by the concerned Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies for recovering an amount of Rs.2,34,404/- from the petitioner. It is required to be noted that there is a statutory remedy provided under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act against 2 issuance of the said recovery certificate. However, without availing the said remedy, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 5001/2010 challenging the said recovery certificate. Since there was a delay in filing the said petition questioning the recovery certificate dated 26/7/2006, this Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition and file a fresh petition by citing the reasons for delay. That is how the instant petition has been filed. The reasons for the delay are mentioned in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the petition. The gist of the reasons is that some time was lost by the petitioner in obtaining the documents as the Managing Committee of the concerned Society was also superseded. If the said reasons are considered, they do not deserve any acceptance in the context of exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner. It appears that the challenge has been raised by the petitioner belatedly with a design. The certificate dated 26/7/2006 issued under Section 101 of the said Act ex facie discloses that the petitioner was heard prior to issuance of the said certificate. 3 It is also required to be noted that in respect of the financial irregularities committed by the office bearers of the concerned Society, an enquiry under Section 88 of the said Act was conducted wherein the loan granted to the petitioner was an issue. However, in view of the certificate issued against the petitioner, the Authority conducting the said enquiry did not proceed further insofar as the petitioner is concerned. However, notwithstanding the fact that the certificate was issued against the petitioner, the Authority in the order passed under Section 88 of the said Act, has directed the recovery of the total amount, which was advanced to seven persons mentioned in the said report, which includes the petitioner. This was on the basis of the complicity of the respondent no.3 herein in the alleged disbursement of the loans. In my view, the writ petition is bereft of any merit and entertaining the writ petition would amount to laying a premium on illegality. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the above 4 petition, the petitioner would be entitled to withdraw the amount that he has deposited after a period of one month from date. JUDGE khj