1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2204 OF 2004. Nilesh S/o Hemraj Thakkar and another ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.N.Irpatgire, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.V.Tele, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.1. Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr.Gaddime, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for the Respondent Nos.4,8,14 and 15. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 23.06.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenged the order rendered in Appeal No. 2/2002. 2. Long and short of the contentions raised by the petitioners is that they are not 2 liable to pay the amount of loan borrowed by the Respondent No.3, which is a Cooperative Society, from the Respondent No.2 inasmuch as they are only guarantors and are not members. It is contended that in view of conjoint reading of Section 45 alongwith Section 91(d) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the petitioners can not be held liable. The main contention of Mr.Irpatgire, learned advocate for the petitioner appears that since there are no restrictions provided in the MCS Act, the transactions of a society with persons other than members shall be subject to the jurisdiction outside the scope of Section 91. Section 91(d) shows that the dispute touching the Constitution, election of Committee, conduct of General Meeting etc. shall be referred to the Cooperative Court. It also appears that the dispute raised by a surety or against the surety of a member, past member or deceased Member or surety of persons other than the member with whom the society has any transaction in respect of which restriction has been prescribed U/s 45, whether such surety is or not Member of society can be agitated 3 before the Cooperative Court. 3. It is true, that restrictions U/s 45 seems to have not been provided so far. The learned A.G.P. could not pin-point that such restrictions have been envisaged by the State Government under any Rules and Regulations. The purport of such provision, however, would not be that the petitioners are outside the realm of jurisdiction available U/s 91. The reason is not far to seek. They are the body members of the Respondent No.3 Cooperative Society as well as sureties. They are not only the sureties of a borrower but are also the body members of the borrower Cooperative Society. Secondly, a plain reading of sub-clause (b) of Section 91 alongwith Section 45 would make it amply clear that the question of jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court or Registrar and his nominee may be raised only by a surety, who is not a member of the Cooperative Society when that Cooperative Society seeks to file dispute against the Principal borrower or a stranger. In other words, if the Respondent No.3 Cooperative Society would have 4 filed any suit against its borrower and if the petitioners were neither members or concerned with the Respondent No.3 and were only the sureties of such a Principal borrower then the question could be raised by them about the jurisdictional error. That is not the fact situation. In similar W.P.No.3299/2004 a Coordinate Bench (B.R.Gavai,J.) by order dated 3.10.2008, held that the dispute against the Committee Members of the borrowing society could be tried by the Cooperative Court. In this view of the matter, there hardly appears any merit in the petition. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to agitate all the legal grounds and questions before the Executing Court as may be permissible under the law. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp220404