Sachin Gorkah Mahadik v. Maulinagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd And ORS

8_WP_2294_25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2294 OF 2025 Sachin Gorakh Mahadik ...

Petitioner vs.

Mauli Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd. & others ... Respondents Mr. Lengare Y. B. for petitioner.

Mr. Chetan G. Patil a/w. Mr. Vishwesh Tadage for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. D. S. Deshmukh, AGP for respondent Nos.5 and 6. CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE :

18th JUNE, 2025 P.C. :

.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned AGP for respondent Nos.5 and 6-State.

2.

By the impugned order dated 19.12.2024, the respondent No.6-revisional authority has dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner, challenging the recovery certificate issued by the Registrar, under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, on the ground that the petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement under Section 154 (2-A) of the said Act of depositing 50% of the recoverable amount with the concerned credit society.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court may consider the aspect of the petitioner being a farmer and give concession to the effect that the petitioner may deposit 50% of the principal amount due.

Digitally signed by PRIYA KAMBLI Date:

2025.06.18 18:13:32 +0530 PRIYA KAMBLI 1/2

8_WP_2294_25.doc 4.

There is no dispute about the fact that the requirement under Section 154(2-A) of the said Act is mandatory requirement and it stipulates that no application for revision shall be entertained against recovery certificate issued by the Registrar under Section 101 of the Act, unless the applicant deposits with the society, 50% of the recoverable amount.

5.

It is undisputed that the amount so referred in the aforesaid provision, is recoverable as per the certificate issued under Section 101 of the said Act. Even today, the petitioner is unable to deposit the said 50% amount of the recoverable dues and therefore, this Court finds no substance in the present petition. 6.

No error can be attributed to the revisional authority in passing the order, which is wholly in consonance with the requirement of law.

7.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(MANISH PITALE, J) Priya Kambli 2/2