1 SSK/40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3134 OF 2010 M/s. K. H. Gharat & Co. ....Petitioner Versus Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. T. Chavan, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Mr. P. I. Khemani, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 15th APRIL, 2010. P.C.: 1. Rule. By consent of the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and considering the short point involved, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By the impugned order, the Respondent No.3 rejected the Petitioner’s revision filed under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 ( herein after for the sake of brevity referred to as the “said Act”) challenging the certificate under section 101 of the said 2 Act. There is no dispute that Respondent No.2-Co-operative Society advanced loan to the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2-Co-operative Society was constrained to file proceedings under section 101 of the said Act for recovery of the balance loan amount. By the order dated 17th December, 2009, the Respondent No.1 after hearing both the parties, issued certificate under section 101 of the said Act in favour of Respondent No.2, thereby directing the Petitioner to pay to Respondent No.2 an amount of Rs.92,15,708/-. 3. The above certificate came to be challenged by the Petitioner by filing revision application under section 154 of the said Act. The Respondent No.3 by the impugned order rejected Petitioner’s revision on the ground that the Petitioner has not complied with mandatory provisions of section 154 (2A) of the said Act (i.e. deposits 50% of recoverable dues with the concerned society). 4. Mr. Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that under sub-section 2A of Section 154, there is bar to entertain revision against Recovery Certificate under section 101 of the Act, unless the applicant deposits with the concerned Society, 50% amount of total recoverable dues. He further submitted that the filing of revision application and entertaining the revision application are two different 3 aspects. The Respondent No.3, in view of the provisions of sub-section 2A of section 154 of the Act, could have refused to entertain the Petitioner’s revision but could not have rejected revision itself for want of deposit of 50% amount of recoverable dues with the concerned society. He relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Jayram P. Pawar & Anr. Versus Asstt. Registrar for Co-op. Societies, Tasgaon & Ors. reported in 2007 (6) Mh.L.J.. 5. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, per-contra supported the impugned order and submitted that deposit of 50% of the recoverable dues with the concerned Society is must before filing a revision under section 154 of the Act. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the above petition alongwith annexures thereto including the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the issue raised by Mr.Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is clearly covered by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Jayram P. Pawar’s case (supra). The learned Single Judge in this case, after considering the provisions of section 154 of the Act, held that there is no bar against filing of the revision application without making deposit of money as per sub-section 2 A of section 154 of the said Act. The learned Single Judge made distinction 4 between filing of revision application and entertaining the revision application. The learned Single Judge held that filing of revision application is a ministerial act performed by the party and entertaining it, is a judicial act performed by the Court/Tribunal by applying judicial mind. The learned Single Judge ultimately held that bar under section 154 (2A) is not against filing of revision application but against entertaining it. In the light of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Jayram P. Pawar’s case (supra), the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set-aside. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. 7. The Respondent No.3 is, however, directed not to entertain the said revision unless the Petitioner complies with the provisions of section 154 (2A) of the Act. Needless to mention that in the absence of any stay to the Recovery Certificate under section 101 from the Competent Authority, the Respondent No.2 – Bank is at liberty to execute, the said certificate in accordance with law. (R. V. MORE, J.)