Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vikas Ratnakar Deobhankar, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad challenging the recovery proceedings initiated against him by the Special Recovery Officer, Dhule District Co-operative Credit Banks, for recovery of dues from Shree Samarth Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Dhule, which was under liquidation. The petitioner contended that the recovery proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the liquidator, opposed the petition arguing that the recovery was validly initiated under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The court examined the facts and found that the recovery certificate was issued after following due procedure. The court also noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 152 of the Act. The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as there were disputed questions of fact and no violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice was established. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Co-operative Law - Recovery Proceedings - Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Validity of Recovery Certificate - The petitioner challenged recovery proceedings initiated by the Special Recovery Officer for dues of a co-operative society in liquidation. The court held that the recovery certificate was issued after following due procedure and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal right or irreparable injury. (Paras 1-10) B) Co-operative Law - Alternative Remedy - Section 152 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Maintainability of Writ Petition - The court held that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 152 of the Act, and the writ petition was not maintainable as there were disputed questions of fact. (Paras 8-10) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be exercised when there is an alternative statutory remedy and no violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice is shown. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 are sustainable and whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of alternative remedy.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed.
Law Points
- Recovery proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- 1960 are valid even after liquidation
- alternative remedy of appeal under Section 152 is available
- writ jurisdiction not to be exercised when disputed questions of fact exist.
