1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO5060/2008
PETITIONER:
Sohanlal s/o Maikudas Bhagat, aged about 65 years,
occupation : retired, r/o Ravidas Nagar, Gram
Panchayat, Yearkheda, Ward No.1, Tah. Kamptee, Dist.
Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1] Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur City -1
2]
Parmatma Ek Sevak Nag. Sah. Bank Ltd. through its Bank
Manager Golibar Chowk Branch, Nagpur.
3] Special Recovery & Sales Officer Paratma Ek Sevak Nag.
Sah. Bank Ltd. Opp. Ganesh Peth, Police Station, Nagpur.
4] Mahendra s/o Yadeorao Khairkar, aged abvout Major,
Occ : Nil, r/o Siddharth Nagar, Kacharapur, Kamptee,
Distt. Nagpur.
5] Ramdas s/o Pandurangji Raut, aged about Major, Occ :
Nil, r/o New Yearkheda, Kampttee, Dist. Nagpur.
===================================
Shri D.C. Chahande, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri J.B. Jaiswal, A.G.P. for respondent no.1
Shri P.S. Tidke, Advocate for respondent no.2 & 3
Shri D.M. Bhanghale, Advocate for respondent no. 4 & 5.
===================================
CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J.
DATE : 15.1.2009.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:14:58 ::: 2ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
The petitioner by this petition challenges the order passed in Recovery Case No.1172/2002 ig by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur granting recovery certificate on 3.11.2008.
2] There is no dispute that the impugned order can be challenged under section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies; by way of revision.
3] The only question is whether this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained even if alternate remedy is available.
4] Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:14:58 ::: 3 unreported judgment of this court in Writ Petition No.6456/2008 (Namdeo S.Sarode ..vs.. Khandelwal Kamgar Audyogik Credit Co-
operative Society Ltd). wherein in paragraph 5 it has been observed thus:
"As the impugned order passed is itself found to be vitiated on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, I am not inclined to order any pre-deposit at this stage. The arguments of Advocate Shareef, about the alternative remedy is also rejected in view of the peculiar facts emerging on record. The respondent no.2 is directed to hear the petitioners afresh. The petitioners shall appear before the respondent no.2 on 1.1.2006, and the respondent no.2 shall hear them either on 1.2.2006 or on any other date as per h is convenience. However, the final orders on application under section 101 of the Act, shall be passed as early as possible and in any case within a period of three weeks from 1.2.2006. The impugned order dated 17.9.2006 passed in the matter is hereby quashed and set aside."
It is his submission that though alternate remedy is available, petitioner may be granted reliefs in this petition.
5] As against this, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 & 3 has relied on the reported judgment of this court reported in 2004(1)Mh.l.J. 996 Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd., ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:14:58 ::: 4 Mumbai & another ..vs.. Dhillon P. Shah & others, wherein it has been held that such order or granting recovery certificate can be challenged under section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.
6] It is therefore, obvious that the petitioner has to avail that remedy to challenge the impugned order. In my opinion , when the petitioner is unable to point out any peculiar fact (as referred in unreported judgment cited supra) or compelling circumstances or any justification for entertaining this writ petition, to exercise extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court, this petition cannot be considered when alternate remedy is not availed. Accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed. However, with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate alternate remedy.
Petition dismissed. Rule discharged.
JUDGE smp.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:14:58 :::