Bombay High Court
Sohanlal vs Deputy Registrar on 15 January, 2009
Bench: S.R. Dongaonkar
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.
ORAL 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
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.,
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.
