1. By this petition filed under section 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 31st March, 2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions does not press prayer clause (e) of the petition and seek liberty to file appropriate claim against the respondent no.1 before the appropriate Court. Leave to amend is granted to delete prayer clause (e) from the writ petition. The amendment to be carried out within one week from today.

2. Insofar as the challenge to the recovery certificate dated 31st March, 2008 issued by the learned Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies is concerned, Mr. Kanade, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.3 and 4 raises an issue of maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner ought to have availed of alternative remedy provided under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. In his alternate submission, he urged that in any event no case is made out insofar as the validity of the recovery certificate is concerned.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the written submissions filed in the application under section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 by the respondent nos.3 and 4 before the Deputy Registrar and submits as under :-

(a). There were several disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioners before the Deputy Registrar.

(b). The respondent nos.3 and 4 have not annexed any statement of account along with the application under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

(c). The counter claim filed by the petitioners has not been considered by the Deputy Registrar in the proceedings filed under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

4. Mr. Kanade, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 on the other hand submits that the petitioners herein did not raise any dispute about the correctness of the chart filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4 before the learned Deputy Registrar. The petitioners also did not raise any issue that no order on the said application filed under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 could have been passed by the Deputy Registrar without the respondent nos.3 an 4 filing any statement of account. Insofar as the issue of counter claim not having been considered by the learned Deputy Registrar is concerned, it is submitted that no such counter claim could be adjudicated upon in a summary proceedings filed under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 by the learned Deputy Registrar. In his alternate submission, he submits that no such counter claim was in fact made by the petitioners in the said proceedings.

5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the averments made in the written submissions filed by the petitioner before the learned Deputy Registrar in the proceedings filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4 under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly pointed out that no such issue was raised by the petitioners in the written submissions that the Deputy Registrar could not have passed an order under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 without there being any statement of account being on record. The petitioners also did not dispute the correctness of the chart produced by the respondent nos.3 and 4 filed in the proceedings under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. In my view, since the petitioners did not raise any dispute about the quantification of the claim made by the respondent nos.3 and 4, the petitioners cannot be allowed to urge that there being disputed questions of fact and thus the dispute could be adjudicated upon only by the C