Smt. Hiraben M. Patel vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2242 Bom

                                                               36.wpst 30683.19.doc

Bhogale

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 30683 OF 2019


          Hiraben M. Patel                                ....Petitioner
                   Vs.
          The State of Maharashtra and ors.               ..... Respondents
                                           -----
          Mr. Vishwajit Kapse I/b. Mr. Yogesh Patil for the Petitioner.
          Mr. Harish Pawar for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
          Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the State.




                                    CORAM :        M. S. KARNIK, J.

                                     DATE :        03 FEBRUARY, 2021

          P.C. :

By this Petition fled under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India the Petitioner challenges an order dated

13.11.2019 passed by the Recovery Ofcer of the Respondent

No.1 to withdraw the attachment of the fat. Learned counsel for

the Petitioner pointed out that despite two earlier orders of

remand of this Court, the Recovery Ofcer has not considered the

objections raised by the Petitioner and proceeded to pass the

impugned order.

36.wpst 30683.19.doc

2. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits

that all objections have been duly considered by the Recovery

Ofcer. According to him there is an alternate remedy available

to the Petitioner to challenge the impugned order under Section

154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

Furthermore, he says that the Recovery Ofcer has the power to

proceed against the legal heirs of the judgment debtor.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Even during

the course of the arguments several contentions are raised by

the learned counsel for the Petitioner. A reading of the impugned

order demonstrates that except for observing that "the above

facts and documents have been considered and that the

Petitioner being the legal heirs are liable to repay the dues of the

RC Holder Bank", none of the contentions raised on behalf of the

Petitioner are considered. Apart from this there does not appear

to be any reference to the two orders passed by this Court in Writ

Petition No.2310 of 2002 fled by the Petitioner and other two

connected Writ Petitions. Even the order dated 04.10.2007

passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in Revision Application

No.495 of 2004 and the observations made therein have not

been considered.

36.wpst 30683.19.doc

4. Though learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that

there is an alternate efcacious remedy is available, I am of the

opinion that as the order passed by the S.R.O. is not a reasoned

order dealing with the contentions raised by the Petitioner,

the same deserves to be set aside. The matter is remitted to the

S.R.O. for fresh consideration and passing a fresh order after

dealing with the objections raised by the Petitioner.

All contentions are kept open.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

Petitioner is 90 years old and therefore Recovery Ofcer ought to

deal with the Petitioner sympathetically. It is for the Petitioner to

raise all such contentions as are permissible before the S.R.O.

The S.R.O. viz. Recovery Ofcer shall undoubtedly consider the

objections and contentions so raised in accordance with law. It is

open for the Petitioner to fle her written objections along with

the supporting documents which the S.R.O. shall consider on its

own merits. Considering the age of the Petitioner the proceedings

are expedited.

6. The impugned order is set aside. Writ Petition is disposed

of.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) Digitally signed by Diksha Diksha Rane Rane Date:

2021.02.03 19:03:52 +0530