1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.6.2000 in Revision Application No. 114 of 2000 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Appeals and Revisions), Mumbai Division, Mumbai, (Revisional Authority), whereby the order issuing recovery certificate by Respondent No.3 in Application No. 892 of 1998, dated 1.2.2000 under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ("the M.C.S. Act" for short) came to be set aside.

THE FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. The factual matrix reveal that the Petitioner is a Co-operative Bank. Respondent No.1 is a principle borrower. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the guarantors. All of them are the shareholders of the petitioner-bank.

3. On being applied by Respondent No.1-principle borrower, petitioner-bank sanctioned loan in the sum of Rs.25,50,000/-, on furnishing surety and guarantee of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No.1 executed necessary loan documents to avail the said financial facility with interest thereon @ 21% per annum. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3- guarantors have also executed a guarantee deed/bond and guaranteed thereunder repayment of loan borrowed and/or to be borrowed by Respondent No.1-principle borrower.

4. The principle borrower after availing financial facility committed default in repayment of outstanding dues of the petitioner-bank. Consequently, demand notice was issued on 5.6.1998 to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 demanding an amount of Rs. 31,62,750-61 followed by another notice dated 8.7.1998 since the earlier demand notice was not complied with by any of the noticees. The petitioner-bank was required to file application under Section 101 of the M.C.S.Act, praying for recovery certificate of the outstanding dues recoverable from the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

5. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies after hearing parties held that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were liable to pay Rs.31,61,739/- to the petitioner-bank. Accordingly, recovery certificate dated 1.2.2000 was issued.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order under Section 101 of the M.C.S. Act the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (guarantors) preferred revision Application under Section 154 of the M.C.S. Act before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Revisional Authority). The said revision petition was heard and allowed. Consequently, the certificate issued under Section 101 of the Act was set aside.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Revisional Authority the petitioner-bank invoked Revisional jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 154 of the M.C.S. Act. The said Revision Application came to be dismissed by an order dated 3.1.2001, holding it to be not maintainable.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the State Government, the Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the above adverse order. SUBMISSIONS: -----------

9. At the out set, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner-bank was very much maintainable since it was a first revision petition preferred by the petitioner-bank. As such, it could not have been rejected, holding it to be not maintainable. He further submits that the order of the Ist Revisional Authority dated 7.6.2000 is palpably wrong, wherein the finding was recorded that the bank had failed to produce supporting documents to establish that the finance was genuine and that the bank did not furnish statement of account in support of its claim. The learned counsel for the petitioner-bank submits that the Ist Revisional Authority had also wrongly recorded adverse finding that the Bank failed to take timely steps to recover its dues. He, thus, submits that both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.

10. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are represented by Shri K.V.Tembe, Advocate. Respondent No.4 chose to remain absent inspite of service.

11. Mr Tembe, i