1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5536 OF 2009. ( Rajendra Babarao Rauat -: versus :- Divisional Joint Registrar and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 02, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri P.S. Tidke, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri S.V. Parkhi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Petitioner claims that respondent no.3 was defaulter and hence was rightly disqualified by the District Deputy Registrar on 21.08.2008. He has invited attention to the said order and thereafter to the impugned order dated 15.09.2008 passed by respondent no.1 Divisional Joint Registrar. Shri Tidke, learned counsel for petitioner argues that without going into the details, only because of extract of loan account dated 05.09.2008,inference has been drawn that amount of Rs. 1,67,180/- was paid in excess and therefore respondent no.3 is held to be not defaulter. 2 Shri Parkhi learned Counsel as also learned A.G.P. on the other hand state that order of respondent no.2 itself is not clear. They point out that the Society on 23.04.2008 is alleged to have reported arrears of Rs. 2,02,707/-, while in reply dated 08.08.2008 the arrears are stated to be Rs. 21,997/-. Learned Counsel contends that burden was upon the petitioner to show that respondent no.3 was defaulter as required by law and as that has not been discharged respondent no.1 has rightly allowed the appeal. Perusal of the orders passed by respondent no.1 as also respondent no.2 does not disclose a proper application of mind. Merely because the society gave some certificate or some report a person cannot be stated to be disqualified or not disqualified. The loan extract which has been produced on record by Shri Parkhi, learned counsel along with the affidavit of respondent no.3, is issued in September, 2008 and in it arrears of Rs. 22,197/- are shown at the end of the financial year 2007-08. Shri Parkhi, learned counsel has however, attempted to show that the said amount cannot be treated as arrears. It is apparent that respondent no.1 was duty bound to consider the issue of arrears in accordance with the loan repayment schedule between the parties and to find out whether on the date alleged by the petitioner, respondent no.3 was in arrears or not. That application of mind is absent. The material on record prima facie shows that there were arrears recoverable from respondent no.3, however, whether those arrears were sufficient to disqualify respondent no.3 is the moot question. On the basis of the material produced, that question cannot be answered. In 3 such situation, the order dated 15.09.2009 passed by respondent no.1 as also the order dated 21.08.2008 passed by respondent no.2 are quashed and set aside. The matter is restored back to the file of respondent no.1 for taking fresh decision in accordance with the law. Respondent no.1 shall call for the original loan papers and accounts from the concerned society and after hearing respective parties in respect thereof take appropriate decision. As the matter is old, the said decision be taken as early as possible and in any case by 31.05.2010. Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.