6.wp.433-08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.433 OF 2009 Shri Bhaskar Krushna Kothawade and others. ..Petitioners. Versus The Govt. of India and others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.N.N. Bhadrashale, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.R.V. Govilkar, Advocate a/w. N.R. Prajapati, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.Anil Kumar Patil, Advocate for respondent No.5. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. By this Petition, what is challenged is direction containing paras-13(ii) & 13(iii) of the order dated 30th November, 2007. Those paragraphs read as under : "13(ii) As regards recovering the money from M/s.Thakkar and Sons, Shri H.C. Bagmar and Shri A.K. Kukade will effect the said recoveries with the assistance of bank, the other members of the present Board of Directors and also the members of the Board of Directors officiating at the time the irregularity was committed. Shri Bagmar and Shri Kukade will furnish quarterly progress reports to this authority and Reserve Bank of India in respect of the recoveries made. The maximum time for recovering the entire amount and the interest thereof will be one year from the date of issue of this Order. 6.wp.433-08 2 (iii) The matter primarily pertains to banking operations. Therefore, in the event of Shri Bagmar and Shri Kukade along with other members of the Board of Directors of the bank failing to effect full recoveries from M/s. Thakkar & Sons, further action for compensating the losses caused to the bank on this account will be taken in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India under the provisions of Multi- State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (AACS)." 2. The petitioners were the members of the Board of Directors when the alleged fraud took place. By the directions quoted above, what has been said by the Authority is that Shri Bagmar who was Chairman and Kukade who was the Chief Executive Officers should take all steps necessary to make recovery of the amount from M/s. Thakkar and Sons who are alleged to have siphoned of the money. The only direction against the petitioners is that they should assist the Chairman and the CEO in making recoveries. Therefore, there is no direction against the petitioners either directing them to make recoveries or directing any recovery being made from them. By Para (iii) the authority say that in case full recoveries are not made then he will consider the question as to from whom the recoveries are to be made. Obviously if such an occasion arises and if there is 6.wp.433-08 3 necessity of making any direction against the petitioners for recovery, they should be granted an opportunity of being heard and all contentions that may be available in law will be available to them. But, as on today, we do not find any order made adverse to the petitioners and, therefore, in our opinion no interference is called for. 3. It is contended that in that situation, the Authority should have issued recovery certificate against the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded because the authority has adopted an approach to see how much amount can be recovered and it is only if there is a shortfall then the question of recovery from the Chairman and others will arise. In our opinion, the view is reasonable and at this juncture no exception can be taken to it. Writ Petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (K.K. TATED,J)