*1* wp.271.11.939.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.271 OF 2011 Rupee Co-operative Bank Ltd.. ..Petitioner -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Kishor V. Tembe, for the Petitioner. Mr.Vaibhav Patankar, for the Respondent No.4. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Sanjeev Deshpande, for the Respondent Nos.5 and 6. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 29th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard Mr.Tembe, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4, so also, Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.5 and 6. 2 The Petitioner Bank is aggrieved by the order made on the revision application. The Petitioner filed the revision application before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Konkan Division, Nave Mumbai challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 05.11.2009. Both the Deputy Registrar, as also, the Divisional Joint Registrar have refused to issue a certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 3 It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the request is rejected without assigning any cogent and satisfactory reason. It is merely stated in both orders that there are discrepancies, errors and contradictions in the *2* wp.271.11.939.sxw accounts and the version of the Petitioner Bank. However, both authorities have failed to point out a single instance of error, discrepancy or contradiction. It is contended that even if there is any calculation error or any credit has not been given inadvertently, the Deputy Registrar could have omitted those particular sums and issued the recovery certificate for the balance sum. Even that exercise has not been undertaken and straightway the request is refused. 4 Mr.Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent No.4, pointed out that during the course of argument before both authorities, the accounts were produced and it was pointed out as to how various entries are erroneous as the credits have not been given for payments, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the orders of both authorities and the petition be dismissed. 5 Having perused the orders under challenge, I am of the opinion that both authorities have failed to apply their mind and erroneously refused the request of the Petitioner Bank. If the request was to issue a recovery certificate under Section 101 on the basis of the entries in the accounts and on the basis of other documents, then, all that was required to undertake is the scrutiny thereof after hearing both sides. On scrutiny, the Deputy Registrar could have made appropriate adjustments and issued the recovery certificate, if at all there is balance sum outstanding, due and payable. However, without assigning any reason and merely making sweeping observations that there are contradictions and errors in the accounts and the version of the Petitioner; does not satisfy the requirement stipulated by law. Ultimately, it is not in dispute that the recovery certificate can be issued even if the entire sum as claimed is not due and payable. For all these reasons and the impugned orders being vitiated by errors apparent on the face of record, they are unsustainable *3* wp.271.11.939.sxw and are set aside. The matter for grant of a recovery certificate under Section 101 will now be decided by the concerned Deputy Registrar afresh after hearing both sides and he shall pass appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law. The Deputy Registrar shall dispose of the application for grant of a recovery certificate as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. Both sides undertake to appear before the Deputy Registrar on 12th July, 2011. 6 Needless to state that the Deputy Registrar shall decide the matter without being influenced by any of the earlier observations made in both orders including that the parties must approach the Co-operative Court. The Deputy Registrar ought to be aware of the fact that an application for issuance of recovery certificate under Section 101 has to be decided on touchstone of the very provision which enables grant of such certificate and the proceedings in that behalf are distinct from a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Therefore, the distinction should always be borne in mind while deciding the matter. Both sides are free to produce necessary records and documents for perusal and scrutiny of the Deputy Registrar. 7 The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)