Kolhapur Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank Ltd., Kolhapur v. Deputy Registrar, C.S., Kolhapur And ORS

Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date:

2024.03.15 12:14:53 +0530 VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU varsha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4893 OF 2017 Kolhapur Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank Ltd, Kolhapur ... Petitioner vs.

Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kolhapur and Ors ... Respondents Mr. S.R. Ganbavale a/w. Mr. Kush M. Lahankar, for Petitioner. Mrs. Sulbha Chipde, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 4th MARCH, 2024 P.C. :- 1.

Heard.

2.

This petition takes an exception to the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies in an appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order of de-registration of respondent no. 2-society. By order dated 9th March 2012, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies has passed an order under section 21 read with section 110 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act ('MCS Act') for de-registration of respondent no.2-society. Page no. 1 of 3

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there are outstanding dues to be recovered from respondent no.2, it was necessary to hear the petitioner before passing an order of deregistration. He submits that since the order of de-registration was passed without a hearing given to the petitioner, an appropriate appeal was filed under section 152 of the MCS Act. However, the same has been dismissed.

4.

I have perused the order of de-registration as well as the order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The Divisional Joint Registrar in the impugned order has observed that the Suit was pending for recovery towards the loan disbursed by the petitioner to respondent no.2. It is further observed in the impugned order that respondent no.2-society has gone under liquidation on 1st October 2001 and by default liquidation period is already exhausted. Hence, the Registrar had no power to extend the period of liquidation. Thus, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 5.

There is no dispute with regard to the dates referred to in the impugned order and the liquidation proceedings against respondent no.2. Hence, I do not see any error or illegality in the order impugned in this petition. Therefore, I see no reason to invoke the Writ Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Page no. 2 of 3

petition is devoid of any merits. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 6.

Needless to record the dismissal of this petition will not come in the way of the petitioner to recover the due amount by adopting procedure as permissible in law.

(GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 3 of 3