-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.574 of 2007 with Civil Application No. 623 of 2007 Baburao Kanu Thakur ..Petitioner vs. 1. The Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and others ..Respondents Shri N.M.Pawar for petitioner Shri A.M.Joshi for respondent no.1. Shri S.M.Gorwadkar for respondent no.4. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 4th February, 2008 4th February, 2008 4th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his revision application which was directed against issuance of recovery certificate on 21st March, 2005. That recovery certificate has been issued on an application by the first respondent’s predecessor in tittle Shri Sadguru Jangli Maharaj Sahakari Bank Ltd. The petitioner is also aggrieved by further order of the Special Recovery Officer attaching his salary. 2. The Bank has proceeded against the guarantors. The petitioner is one of them and he claims that he has been discharged because -2- the hypothecated stocks have been lost due to negligence of the Bank and, therefore, the Revisional Authority should not have insisted upon the petitioner complying with the requirement of deposit of 50% of the amount under the Recovery Certificate. He claims that the revision application has not been heard on merits but has been dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to comply with section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. 3. In sofar as the attachment of salary is concerned, Shri Joshi appearing for the first respondent Bank, after taking instructions, makes a statement that the Bank has recovered from the original borrowers a sum of Rs.6,37,500/- (approx.) and that all that remains to be recovered under the Recovery Certificate is a sum of Rs.75,000/- approximately. 4. Shri Joshi states that the Bank has instructed him to make a statement that it would have no objection if the attachment on the salary of the petitioner is raised and the petitioner’s employer hereafter is not liable to -3- remit any sum to the Bank. 5. In this view of the matter, the attachment on the petitioner’s salary stands raised. The employer of the petitioner is no longer obliged to recover and remit any sums to the first respondent for satisfaction of the subject recovery certificate. In this view of the matter, the petitioner’s Revision Application, in so far as it challenges the action of the first respondent’s predecessor in title in proceeding against the petitioner and recoverying nearly Rs.51,000/- from him is restored to file. It should be decided on merits and in accordance with law without insisting upon the compliance with section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Revision Application shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Needless to clarify that all contentions of both sides in sofar as legality of the recovery certificate and alleged discharge of the petitioner from the liability to pay thereunder are open and Divisional Joint Registrar to consider the same without being influenced by the earlier order so also the statedment made by Shri Joshi today. The petition is disposed of -4- in the above terms. No costs. 6. Civil Application does not survive in the light of disposal of the writ petition and hence dismissed as such. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)