RAMESH T GOPALANI Vs. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four writ petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of a common order dated 15th January, 1999 passed by the Minister of State Co-operation in Revision Applications Nos. 1797/cr-316/15-C. The relevant facts are very few and they are as under :-

(2.) THE petitioner is a debtor while respondent No. 1 is a Co-operative Bank. Respondent No. 2 is the Recovery Officer of the said Bank. In the year 1994 the petitioner was granted cash credit facility of Rs. 13,50,000/ -. In addition, he was granted 3 loans. The first being of Rs. 2,30,000/- for purchase of a car. The second of Rs. 50,000/- and the third of Rs. 50,000/ -. It appears that the petitioner failed to clear arrears of the above mentioned loans hence the respondent Bank filed an application before the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Society and obtained 4 separate recovery certificates against the petitioner under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act ). On the basis of the said recovery certificates, the respondent bank took up execution proceedings and attached the car and shop belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner then filed a revision application under section 154 of the Act, challenging the recovery certificates issued against him. The Divisional Joint Registrar by his order dated 10-4-1997 partly allowed the revision applications and confirmed recovery certificates issued by the Dy. Registrar. However, he directed the respondent bank to release the car and shop of the petitioner forthwith. The order further states that the respondent bank was at liberty to execute the recovery certificates against any other assets of the petitioner. Being dis-satisfied with the said order, the respondent bank filed a revision application under section 154 of the Act to the State Government. The Minister of State for Co-operation by his order dated 15th January, 1999 allowed the revision applications and set aside the order passed by the Joint Registrar and restored the order passed by the Dy. Registrar. It is this order which is impugned by the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SHRI Mulchandani, the learned Advocate for the petitioner contended before me that the impugned order is patently illegal since section 154 of the Act does not contemplate any second revision. Shri Naik, the learned Advocate for the respondent, however, pointed out that the petitioner did not raise the question of maintainability of the second revision before the State Government and therefore, it is now not open to him to agitate this point. In order to appreciate the controversy it would first be proper to refer to section 154 of the Act, which reads as under:-