-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 788 OF 2010 Pune Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Kirit Hakani for the petitioner. Mr. R. V. Govilkar for respondent nos. 3 & 4. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 6. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : June 30, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By the impugned order, respondent No.2 – Minister for Co- operation granted stay to the recovery certificate issued under section 98 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short “the MCS Act”] by respondent no. 6 - the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. Enquiry under section 88 of the MCS Act was initiated against the office bearers of the petitioner including respondent nos.3 & 4. The authorised officer on 7th July 2004 passed order in Enquiry proceeding under Section 88, thereby fixing the liability of respondent nos. 3 & 4 as srp -: 2 :- well as other office bearers of the petitioner bank to the extent of Rs. 2,09,18,886/- for the loss caused to the petitioner bank. This order, I am told, is challenged by respondent nos.3 & 4 before the Divisional Joint Registrar under section 152 of the MCS Act, however, no stay is granted to the order passed by the authorised officer under section 88 the MCS Act. 4. Respondent no.6 - Commissioner for Co-operation, Maharashtra State thereafter at the instance of the petitioner issued certificate u/s 98(1) the MCS Act in order to enable the petitioner to execute order passed u/s 88 the MCS Act. This order was challenged by respondent nos.3 & 4 by preferring an appeal under section 152 of the MCS Act before respondent no.2–Minister. Respondent no.2–Minister after hearing respondent nos.3 & 4 by the order impugned in this petition, granted stay to the certificate mentioned above issued under section 98(1) of the MCS Act. 5. Mr. Hakani, learned counsel for the petitioner raised short point that the appeal filed by respondent nos. 3 & 4 challenging the certificate under section 98(1) the MCS Act is not maintainable and therefore the impugned order granting stay to the said certificate is illegal. Mr. Govilkar, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 is not able to controvert this position. However, he submitted that the appeal filed -: 3 :- before respondent no.2 – Minister can be converted into revision. 6. I find substance in the submission of Mr. Hakani, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is bad and illegal inasmuch as it is passed without jurisdiction and same deserves to be set aside. The petition is, therefore, disposed of by passing following order. (i) The impugned order dated 20th November 2008 passed by respondent no.2 - the Minister for Co-operation is quashed and set aside. (ii) Respondent nos. 3 & 4 are permitted to apply to respondent no.2 – Minister for conversion of the appeal filed under section 152 into Revision application under section 154 of the MCS Act. (iii) In the event, respondent no.2 – Minister allows the conversion as stated above, respondent nos. 3 & 4 are at liberty to apply afresh for stay to the certificate issued under section 98 of the MCS Act. (iv) Respondent No.2 – Minister shall decide respondent nos. 3 & 4’s prayer for stay to the certificate issued under section 98 of the MCS Act after hearing both the sides, namely, the Petitioner and respondent nos. 3 & 4. (v) In order to enable respondent nos.3 & 4 to take appropriate action in terms of the aforesaid directions, the parties are directed to maintain status quo for the period of four weeks from today. -: 4 :- (vi) It is expressedly made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter and all points and contentions, including the maintainability of the revision, are kept open. (R.V. MORE, J.)