1. This petition takes exception to the issuance of recovery certificate No.205/04 dated 05.04.2004, by respondent No.2. There is also prayer clause (C) in the petition for quashing and setting aside order dated 21.02.2011, in Complaint No.40 of 2010, passed by respondent No.5Tahsildar, thereby confirming Mutation Entry No. 1673, in favour of respondent/Pat Sanstha and for that purpose necessary orders are sought by the petitioner.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of parties finally at the admission stage.

3. The background facts which are disclosed in the petition for filing of this petition are as under:

4. The petitioner is resident of Kolpewadi, Tal. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. It is case of the petitioner that he was in need of money. Therefore, he approached to respondent No.3/Pat Sanstha and requested for loan amount. Considering the request and application for loan, respondent/Pat Sanstha sanctioned loan in favour of the petitioner and for said loan, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 herein stood as guarantors.

5. It is case of the petitioner that after obtaining such loan from respondent No.3/Pat Sanstha, the petitioner is regularly repaying said amount to respondent/Pat Sanstha. It is further case of the petitioner that he was surprised and shocked to receive attachment order of his property against the loan amount, which is already paid to respondent/Pat Sanstha by the petitioner. It is case of the petitioner that after receiving notices from respondent No.4, he rushed to the Office of respondent Nos.2 and 3 for enquiry about notice issued against the petitioner. On approaching respondent Nos.2 and 3 and upon demanding necessary documents in respect of loan transaction, the respondent has not given any response and has not given any single document to the petitioner.

6. It is specific case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 by keeping in dark to the petitioner, has unilaterally obtained certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, against the petitioner from respondent No.2. The said certificate is issued without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that, said certificate is issued in violation of statutory rules i.e. 86A to 86F of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. It is the case of the petitioner that, this Court in similar facts and circumstances of the case decided Writ Petition No.1717 of 2009, and allowed the same.

7. It is further case of the petitioner that, the Revenue Authorities have mutated name of respondent/society in the revenue record by M.E. No. 1673 and entered name of respondent No.3 even in 7/12 extract of land Gat No. 78 situated at village Kolpewadi, Tal. Kopargaon. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, was pleased to confirm the Mutation Entry in favour of respondent/Pat Sanstha, being Mutation Entry No. 1673. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed challenging the certificate issued by respondent No.2 under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and action of respondent No.5 confirming Mutation Entry No. 1673 in favour of respondent No.3.

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before issuing certificate under the provisions of Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, respondent No.3 did not issue any notice to the petitioner. The procedure/rules 86A to 86F of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules are not followed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 in the first instance had not issued any notice to the petitioner before issuing certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Secondly, said certificate is issued without assigning any reasons. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that respondent No.2 has not followed the guidelines mentioned in circular dated 03.03