( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 486 OF 2010 Sow. Geeta Gopal Agrawal PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.B. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for the respondents No.1, 2, 6 and 7. Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate holding for Mr. C.A. Jadhav, advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. Mr. N.D. Sonwane, advocate for respondent No. 5. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4595 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 486 OF 2010 Jalgaon Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. APPLICANT Jalgaon. [INTERVENER] VERSUS Sau. Geetabai w/o Gopal Agrawal and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, advocate for applicant/intervener. Mr. V.B. Patil, advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondents No. 2, 3, 7 & 8. Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate holding for Mr. C.A. Jadhav, advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5. Mr. N.D. Sonawane, advocate for respondent No. 6. ..... ( 2 ) [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th May, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges recovery certificate, issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “the MCS Act”). The petitioner is a borrower. The respondent No. 3 initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was member of the respondent No. 3 and allegedly, was in arrears of certain amounts. The recovery certificate was issued for Rs. 5,85,705/- (P-41). 3. The petitioner’s contention is that the recovery certificate was issued without following the guidelines and without observing principles of natural justice. The petitioner alleges that no opportunity was given to her for the purpose of showing inaccuracy in respect of the demanded quantum of amount. The petitioner alleges that ( 3 ) sale of her house property is being conducted in pursuance to the recovery certificate and she has separately challenged the legality of the sale proceedings by filing separate revision application before the competent authority, which is pending. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on certain observations in “Ganeshkumar Makhanlal Chandak and another v. Nagpur Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another” 2005 (3) Bom.C.R. 925. A Single Bench of this Court held that recovery certificate issued without holding any proper enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the borrower, was illegal and, therefore, de novo enquiry was ordered. 5. It emerges from the record that the recovery certificate was issued on 08-05-2006. The petitioner challenged the recovery certificate by filing a revision application under section 154 of the MCS Act. The revision application was dismissed on 31st July, 2006. So, what the petitioner was required to challenge is the legality of the order rendered in the revision ( 4 ) application whereby the recovery certificate was confirmed. Since 31st July, 2006, the petitioner did not challenge that order rendered by the revisional authority in the exercise of powers under section 154 of the MCS Act. Even today, that order is not subject matter of challenge in the present petition. The petitioner alleges that she had filed a suit whereby the legality of recovery certificate was challenged but the suit came to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner has, therefore, filed writ petition No. 1009/2009 against such order of the civil Court. Needless to say, the petitioner exhausted the remedies which were available and that the recovery certificate was not challenged by filing writ petition since 8th May, 2006. After about four (4) years, this writ petition has been filed and that too when the auction proceedings have been concluded by the competent authority and the issue is pending before the revisional authority. The objection raised by the petitioner in the auction proceedings also did not show any kind of specific challenge to the legality of the recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the MCS Act. Perusal of the objection application dated ( 5 ) 15-01-2009 (Exh-H) shows that there is no whisper about legality of the recovery certificate. The petitioner attended the hearing of the objection petition. It appears from the record that the first auction was not approved by the competent authority due to technical defects. 6. The challenge to the recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the MCS Act is belated and untenable. The petition involves disputed questions of facts. The petition is liable to be dismissed on account of delay and latches. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution need not be exercised in the present fact situation. The reliance placed on “Ganeshkumar Makhanlal Chandak & another” (supra) is also improper because the legality of the certificate is not being examined on merits thereof. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No costs. 7. It appears that interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 06-01-2010. The same is continued only for three (3) weeks henceforth ( 6 ) and in the meanwhile, the petitioner would be at liberty to apply before the revisional authority for any kind of interim relief and the same be not granted without hearing the other side and such kind of application shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any observations of this Court. 8. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, the civil application No. 4595/2010 stands disposed of accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp486-10 ( 7 ) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2200 OF 2010 Rishabh s/o Gopal Agrawal & others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.B. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate holding for Mr. C.A. Jadhav, advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. Mr. N.D. Sonwane, advocate for respondent No. 5. ..... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2201 OF 2010 Namit s/o Gopal Agrawal & others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.B. Patil, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 and 2. No. 1 and 2. Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate holding for Mr. C.A. Jadhav, advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. Mr. N.D. Sonwane, advocate for respondent No. 5. ..... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2229 OF 2010 Gopal s/o Onkarlal Agrawal & others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ( 8 ) ..... Mr. V.B. Patil, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate holding for Mr. C.A. Jadhav, advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. Mr. N.D. Sonwane, advocate for respondent No. 5. .....