KAUSALYA SAMP Vs. RAJESH V GUJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of section 154 (2a) as amended by the Amending Act maharashtra 41 of 2000. Under the provisions of the Sub Section (2a) it is provided that no application for revision shall be entertained against the recovery certificate issued by the registrar under section 101 unless the applicant deposits with the concerned society, fifty percent, of the total amount of recoverable dues.

(2.) These provisions of sub-section (2a) of section 154 are challenged by the petitioner in the context of the facts which are briefly enumerated as under :

(3.) A firm known as M/s. Gajanankrupa enterprises availed of the loan facilities from the 1st respondent Bank. The petitioner before the Court was a partner of the said 2nd respondent firm. It is the case of the petitioner that with effect from 20. 8.1991 the petitioner retired from the said firm and thus ceased to be a partner any further. However, it is an admitted position that at the relevant time of granting the loan to the said partnership firm, the petitioner was a partner in the said firm. Sometime in or about 1998, the 2nd respondent firm filed a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative societies Act for the recovery of the dues and by an order dated 8.2.2000 the respondents in the said dispute including the firm were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 34. , 91 ,630. 00 with further interest on the principal sum of Rs. 15 lacs. Accordingly, a certificate for recovery has been issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative societies Act for recovery of sum of rs. 34,91 ,630/- It is the case of the petitioner that on 11.12.2002 a notice was served on the petitioner under rule 107 of the Maharashtra cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 and the recovery certificate is sought to be enforced against the assets of the petitioner. On 17.12.2002, the petitioner sought for a certified copy of the said recovery certificate, however, the same was not furnished and ultimately the petitioner received a xerox copy of the certificate dated 18.2.2000. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 622 of 2003 challenging the said recovery certificate and for various interim relief's. On 7.4.2004, this Court directed the petitioner to avail of alternative remedy available under the provisions of Sect-ion 154 of the Maharashtra no-operative Societies Act, 1960 and disposed of the petition accordingly.