Bombay High Court
Prakash Balwantrao Ingawale vs The Special Recovery Officer Thr ... on 18 September, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:38917
1-wp7354-2025 with cpst22487-2025.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7354 OF 2025
Prakash Balwantrao Ingawale ... Petitioner
V/s.
The Special Recovery Officer,
through Baramati Sahakari Bank
Limited, & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (ST.) NO.22487 OF 2025
Prakash Balwantrao Ingawale ... Petitioner
V/s.
Prashant Dyandev Shirke ... Respondent
ATUL
GANESH
Mr. Sushant Prabhune for the petitioner.
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
Mr. Pratap Patil for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
KULKARNI
Date: 2025.09.18
17:33:30 +0530
Mrs. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for respondent Nos.3,4, & 7-
State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 18, 2025
P.C.:
Writ Petition No.7354 of 2025:
1. By the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality of
the order passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of power
under Rule 107(D-1)(vi) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies
Rules, 1961.
1-wp7354-2025 with cpst22487-2025.doc
2. This Court has already dealt with an identical issue in the
case of Amit Jori vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition
No.1331 of 2025, decided on 4 February 2025. In that judgment,
this Court has categorically held that the power exercised by the
Magistrate under Rule 107(D-1)(vi) is purely ministerial and
executionary in nature.
3. Once it is held that the function is ministerial, the role of the
Magistrate is confined to implementing the statutory direction as it
stands. The Magistrate does not exercise any adjudicatory
function, nor does he have to weigh evidence or examine rival
claims. His role is limited to carrying out the legislative mandate in
a mechanical manner.
4. In such cases, no element of discretion is involved. The
decision of the District Magistrate does not require application of
mind to competing claims or an evaluation of fairness. It is not
akin to a quasi-judicial function where questions of bias, natural
justice, or fairness arise. The law itself directs the course of action,
leaving no scope for independent decision-making.
5. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that Rule 107(D-1)
(vi) does not, and cannot, confer any authority upon the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate to consider
objections, entertain disputes, or adjudicate rights between the
borrower and any other party. The Magistrate cannot enter into
disputed questions of fact or law, since the statutory duty is
restricted to execution of the request placed before him under the
Rule.
1-wp7354-2025 with cpst22487-2025.doc
6. For these reasons, and in view of the binding precedent in
Amit Jori (supra), I am of the considered view that the present
writ petition, which seeks to challenge the validity of the order
passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of such limited
executionary power, cannot be entertained.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Contempt Petition (St.) No.22487 of 2025:
8. Insofar as the contempt petition is concerned, it is clear that
the interim order of this Court was passed without noticing the
earlier binding precedent in Amit Jori (supra). Once it is
established that the interim order itself was contrary to the settled
legal position, no issue of willful disobedience survives.
9. Therefore, nothing further remains for adjudication in this
contempt petition.
10. The contempt petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
