ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

( 1 ) IN view of the limited point of law involved, the Special Leave Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is alleged to have taken loans from the respondent-Bank under 17 loan transactions either in his capacity as the principal borrower or as the Director of the firm M/s Prakash Offset Printers. According to the respondent-Bank a sum of Rs. 413. 16 lakhs together with interest was due to it from the petitioner as on 31. 12. 03. The petitioner, along with the firm and its other Directors, disputed their liability to make the said payment and filed an application under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies act, 1960. Initially, the Co-operative Court granted an order of status-quo but vacated the same after hearing the Bank. The Co-operative appellate Court affirmed the order of the Co-operative Court and refused to stay the recovery proceedings. Meanwhile, the respondent-Bank also initiated action for recovery under Section 101 of the aforesaid Act against the petitioner and his business concerns. Accepting the claim of the Bank, the assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued 12 Recovery Certificates on 12. 3. 2004. The petitioner and his other concerns filed three writ petitions before the High Court questioning the issuance of the Recovery certificates. The High Court also declined to grant any relief and on 30. 6. 2004 the Bank 3 issued demand notices to the appellant and his other concerns. A warrant of attachment was also issued.

( 3 ) ON 15. 7. 2004, the petitioner herein filed a misc. Complaint Application before the divisional Joint Registrar seeking reliefs which were similar to the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions. After service of notice, the respondent-Bank entered appearance and an order or status quo was passed while fixing the matter for hearing on 22. 12. 2004. Although, an objection was taken on behalf of the respondent-Bank that the proceedings were not maintainable and had been commenced in violation of the provisions of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Divisional Joint Registrar set aside the Recovery Certificates against which decision the respondent-Bank filed a Writ petition in the High Court and prayed for setting aside the order of the Divisional Joint registrar, which prayer was allowed.

( 4 ) THIS Special Leave Petition is directed against the said decision of the High Court granting the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar.

( 5 ) APPEARING for the petitioner, Mr. Jaideep gupta, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the revisional powers under the aforesaid Act vested in the State Government or the registrar, which could be exercised suo motu or on an application. He urged that since the revisional powers under Section 154 of the aforesaid Act had been invoked by the divisional Joint Registrar of the Co-operative societies suo motu, the order passed by him could not be said to have been passed contrary to the provisions of Sub-section (2a) of section 154 of the aforesaid Act. Mr. Gupta urged that the High Court had erroneously come to the conclusion that the revision proceedings against the decision of the Registrar was hit by the provisions of Sub-section (2a) of section 154 of the above Act, since the inquiry was commenced by the said authority on receipt of information and not on a formal application made to him.

( 6 ) MR. GUPTA then contended that the views expressed by the High Court in regard to the interpretation of Sub-section (2a) of Section 154 was erroneous and had been wrongly applied to the facts of the case by the High Court.

( 8 ) IN this regard, Mr. Lalit referred to Section 154 of the above-mentioned Act which empowers the State Government and the Registrar, either suo-motu or on application, to call for and examine the records of an inquiry or proceedings of any matter other than those referred to in Sub-section (9) of Section 149, where