1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 72/2010 GANGADHAR NARAYANRAO KHATI VS. THE DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO.OP SOCIETY, NAGPUR AND ANOTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri P.A.Mishra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Thakare, AGP, for Respondent NO.1. Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate, for Respondent No.2 CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 08, 2010. Heard. The contention is RRC came to be issued without any notice to the petitioner and the attachment has also been done without any notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner was all the while pointing out to Respondent No.2 Bank that action needs to be initiated against the principal borrower and he was not interested in avoiding any notice sent by the Bank. He points out that when some of the notices are received by the petitioner or his wife, it can not be accepted that the notices sought to be relied upon in the present matter were received by the petitioner or were not claimed by him. Learned AGP has produced the original record before this Court to show the notices were duly sent. Advocate Ghare has pointed out that after the notice under Section 101 forwarded by the Bank was received back with postal endorsement of “not claimed” on 2 27.11.2008, the communications were forwarded to the petitioner to appear in RRC and his wife Mrs. N.Khati has received those communication, but petitioner has chosen not to remain present. Perusal of the original record produced by learned AGP shows that the communications sent to the petitioner has been received back with the postal endorsement of “not claimed” on 27.11.2008. The authority has ultimately published an advertisement in Loksatta on 24th January, 2009, in this respect and thereafter the RRC proceeded further. Ultimately the certificate in that matter has been issued on 25.09.2009. The affidavit showing the service on wife has been filed by Respondent No.2 Bank on 2.2.2010. In these circumstances, it is apparent that arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are only hypothetical and cannot be accepted. The conduct shows that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rvjalit.