Dismissed

Vaishali Jagdish Salunkhe v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jul 2012WP/2488/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a Zilla Parishad Primary Teacher seeking to quash an order directing salary recovery under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The court held the recovery certificate was conclusive proof of arrears and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned directions of the Education Officer and orders of the Block Development Officer upheld.

Vaishali Jagdish Salunkhe Vs the State of Mah… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

W.P. No.2488/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2488 OF 2012

¶6

Ms Vaishali Jagdish Salunkhe, Age 41 years, Occ. Service, R/o Asoda, Taluka Jalgaon, District Jalgaon

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶10

The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nashik, District Nashik.

¶11

The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nashik, District Nashik.

¶12

The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon.

¶13

Godavari Laxmi Co-operative Bank Limited, 31, Navi Peth, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon, through its Special Recovery Officer.

¶14

M/s Kapil Agro Agency, Prop. Shri Madhavrao Dagadu Patil, Age 75 years, Occ. Pensioner, R/o Asoda, Taluka Jalgaon District Jalgaon ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

W.P. No.2488/2012

¶16

¶17

Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 3 Shri S.S. Deve, Advocate for respondent No.5

¶18

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & U.D. SALVI, JJ.

¶19

DATED: 24th July, 2012

¶20

JUDGMENT (Per U.D. Salvi, J.) :

¶21

Heard. Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by mutual consent of parties.

¶22

This petition has been moved by a Zilla Parishad Primary Teacher seeking writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the communication/ directions issued by Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nashik, dated 6.2.2012 rejecting the plea of the petitioner and directing the respondent No.3 Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nashik to recover from the salary of the petitioner the amounts due and recoverable under Recovery Certificate issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

¶23

According to the petitioner, the respondent No.5 Godavari Laxmi Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) had filed an application for issuance of recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 –

¶24

W.P. No.2488/2012

¶25

¶26

being Recovery Certificate Application No.456/2007, before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon against the respondent No.6 M/s Kapil Agro Agency, Jalgaon and 3 others, including the petitioner. The respondent No.6, according to the petitioner, was the principal borrower of cash credit facility, and the petitioner and 2 others were guarantors. The petitioner contends that the recovery certificate was issued only against the principal borrower and was not issued against the petitioner.

¶27

The petitioner further contends that the Bank had, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.10729/2010 seeking necessary directions to deduct Rs.8000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner and the said petition was disposed off by this Court with directions to the respondent No.2 Education Officer to take decision in light of the certificate issued and the say filed by the respondents/ guarantors within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. In meanwhile, the petitioner submits, the principal borrower had filed a Dispute bearing No.10/2000 in the Co-operative Court at Jalgaon seeking a declaration that the declared balance amount payable by respondent No.6 to the Bank was to the tune of only Rs.20,958/- and the said dispute is pending. The petitioner further submits that, when she was called upon by the Education Officer to file her say in light of the directions passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10729/2010,

¶28

W.P. No.2488/2012

¶29

¶30

she had filed a detailed say pointing out that the recovery certificate issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was only against the principal borrower and not against her and she was only receiving salary of Rs.17,814/- per month to manage her maintenance and payment of her dues to various financial agencies. The petitioner further submits that the Bank had filed Contempt Petition No.502/2011 in Writ Petition No.10729/2010 making allegations against the authorities that there was non compliance of the orders passed in the said petition, and in response to the notice issued in the said contempt proceedings the authorities had hurriedly passed the impugned order.

¶31

All said and done the principal contention, according to learned Advocate Mr. Hon for the petitioner, is that the recovery certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar is not against the petitioner and the said fact is evident from the recovery certificate itself. Reading of para 2 of the recovery certificate at Exhibit A to the petition, learned Advocate Mr. Hon for the petitioner pointed out, refers only to the respondent No.1 M/s Kapil Agro Agencies mentioned therein. Para 2 of the recovery certificate reads as under :

¶32

“Whereas on sending proper notices to the above mentioned parties and upon due enquiry into the application, I pass the following order for the reasons separately recorded :

¶33

W.P. No.2488/2012

¶34

¶35

Above mentioned respondent Nos.1 to __ shall pay to the applicants an amount of Rs.5,36,227.78 along with application fee and expenses, totally aggregating to Rs.5,39,958.78 and interest @ __ on the principal amount of Rs.5,12,668.78 from 1.6.2007 till its realisation jointly and severally.”

¶36

However, learned Advocate for the respondent No.5 pointed out that reading of para 4 of the recovery certificate clearly indicated that the amounts mentioned therein as due amounts were to be recovered from the respondents mentioned therein and the petitioner’s name figured as one of the respondents in the said recovery certificate. For interpreting the recovery certificate, one has to read the instrument as a whole and not in parts. On reading of the recovery certificate as a whole, it makes a sense that the amounts mentioned therein are to be recovered as the arrears of land revenue from all the respondents therein i.e. the principal borrower as well as the petitioner and 2 others and the respondents were declared jointly and severally liable for the payment of the said amounts mentioned therein.

¶37

Suffice it to say that Sub-section (3) of Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 unequivocally declares that the certificate granted by the Registrar under Sub-Section (1) or (2) of the said section shall be final and a conclusive proof of the arrears stated to be due therein and the same shall be recoverable according to law for the time being in force for the recovery of land

¶38

W.P. No.2488/2012

¶39

¶40

revenue. All contentions in respect of the amounts due from M/s Kapil Agro Agencies as well as its guarantors including the petitioner are thus set to rest.

¶41

This Court has directed the respondent No.2 Education Officer to take decision in light of the said recovery certificate and the say filed by the respondents/ guarantors and to pass appropriate order, vide order dated 26.9.2011 in Writ Petition No.10729/2010. The Education Officer did consider the fact that the petitioner was the guarantor for the repayment of the loan borrowed by the principal borrower from respondent No.5 Bank and the Block Development Officer remained under obligation to recover the liabilities from the salary of the guarantors. No interference is, therefore, warranted in the impugned directions. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged.

¶42

(U.D. SALVI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Vaishali Jagdish Salunkhe v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaishali Jagdish Salunkhe v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Sant Tukaram Bahuudesshiya Shikshan Sanstha Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Raju Pundlik Baviskar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dilip Shriram Chavan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nemulal Maroti Bhandwale and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mauli Doodh Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Pandharechi Wadi Thr Chairman Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rajaram Nivruti Duve Vs the State of Mah and Ors.