1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4153 OF 2009 Shri Udaysingh Rathod ... Petitioner v/s The Spl. Recovery & Sales Offcer & ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.Y.Shankar i/by R.C.Dhuru for the pettioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for the State. Mr.Kunal Damle for the respondent No.3. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 14TH JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the order passed by the respondent No.1 attaching the bank account of the petitioner vide letter dated 5.3.2009. According to the petitioner, the recovery certificate had been issued against him in respect of certain dues which the bank claims were payable to it by the petitioner. That recovery 2 certificate was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision application. The revision application was decided by the District Deputy Registrar on 21.2.2005. While filing the revision application, the petitioner had deposited 50% of the amount due and payable under the recovery certificate as required under Section 154(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. After the remand, the recovery officer, after hearing the parties, issued a fresh recovery certificate in respect of the same demand. The petitioner has now filed a revision application on 10.2.2009 which is pending before the Divisional Joint Registrar. According to the petitioner, while the revision application was pending, the recovery officer attached the bank account of the petitioner. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since there is some delay in filing the revision application, the petitioner had filed an application for condoning the delay along with the application for stay of the recovery certificate and an application for waiver of the deposit of 50%. It is submitted that this waiver was sought in view of the fact that 50% of the amount due and payable under the recovery certificate had been deposited 3 with the bank when the earlier revision application was filed and that deposit was not returned by the bank although the matter was remanded as a consequence of the revision application filed by him being allowed on 21.2.2005. 3. The learned A.G.P. States that the revision application has now been fixed for hearing on 22.7.2009. The District Deputy Registrar will hear the other applications which have been filed along with the revision application. In any event, the order directing the attachment of the bank account of the petitioner is illegal and in these circumstances, is set aside. 4. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). ..... 4