Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. By these petitions, the issues raised for the decision of this Court are as follows:-

(1) Whether this Court, in its writ and/or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should entertain a proceeding under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, M.C.S. Act), challenging the recovery certificate u/s. 101, directly by avoiding or not resorting to the statutory remedy u/s. 154 and section 154 (2A) of The M.C.S. Act?

(2) Whether the remedy u/s. 154 r/w section 154 (2A) of the M.C.S. Act could be termed to be a statutory remedy available and not merely an alternate remedy?

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued vehemently and at length that in the peculiarity of the facts of his case and relying upon reported judgments, the petitioner's case is fit enough to be entertained directly by this Court under its writ or supervisory jurisdiction without directing the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy. According to the petitioner, remedy u/s. 154 r/w section 154 (2A) of the M.C.S. Act is an alternate remedy.

4. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner in brief, in both these petitions. Since a common issue is involved in both these petitions, I would not be adverting to the facts of the second petition in view of the order that I propose to pass and for the reasons indicated therein.

5. The facts narrated by the petitioner are as follows:-

(a) He had borrowed a loan of about Rs. 16,00,000/ in the year 2003. One loan account was with reference to an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/ and the other with relation to an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/.

(b) A close relative stood as a guarantor and his agricultural land was mortgaged as a secured property against both the above stated loans.

(c) Certain blank papers have been signed by the petitioner under orders of the respondent Bank in the year 2003 in relation to the two loan accounts.

(d) Both the loan accounts, referred to above, have been closed on account of the repayment made by the petitioner. There is no dispute as regards this fact.

(e) In relation to the controversy at issue, the respondent Bank has prepared documents to show that the loan was sanctioned on 28/03/2008 for an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/.

(f) Proceedings for recovery of loan were initiated by the Bank under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, M.C.S. Act) before the competent authority, which is the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies. In its written statement filed before the said Authority, the petitioner has categorically stated in paragraph No. 2 that several relevant documents have not been filed by the bank.

(g) Keeping aside all the objections raised by the petitioner, the said authority allowed the proceedings and issued a recovery certificate u/s. 101 of the M.C.S. Act.

(h) The petitioner challenged the said proceedings as well as the recovery certificate before the Revisional Authority u/s. 154 r/w section 154(2A) of the M.C.S. Act.

(i) The Revisional Authority declined to entertain the revision petition and returned the papers to the petitioner in view of having not complied with the mandatory requirement of section 154 (2A) of the M.C.S. Act, which mandates depositing of 50% of the amount assessed in the recovery certificate with that Society from whom the loan has been taken.

(j) The petitioner has mortgaged one of his residential properties with the H.D.F.C. Bank while obtaining a home loan.

(k) The said property, which is under mortgage with H.D.F.C. Bank is sought to be auctioned and the offset price is stated to be Rs. 17,23,019/.

(l) The said residential property as per the market value, would fetch an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/ to Rs. 50,00,000/ approximately.

6. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Top Ten, A Partnershi