1. Heard.

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

3. The instant petition challenges the order dated 15/10/2013, passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur in Revision No.77/2011, upholding the order dated 29/09/2011, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur, by which the authorities have refused to grant recovery certificate under S.101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the MCS Act') to the petitioner / Bank.

4. The impugned orders concurrently records that, in absence of cogent and reliable documents depicting account entries about advancement of loan to the respondent Nos.4 to 7 and their respective liabilities and in view of the genuine dispute about liability of the borrowers, the certificate under S.101 of the MCS Act cannot be issued.

5. Heard Advocate Mr. A. N. Irpatgire, learned counsel for the petitioner; Advocate Ms. A. S. Mantri, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Advocate Mr V. D. Salunke, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 7.

6. The controversy involved in this petition revolves around the entitlement of the petitioner / Bank for a certificate of recovery under S.101 of MCS Act against respondent Nos.4 to 6. The petitioner's primary contention is that respondent No.4 to 6 had initially availed cash credit of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner / Bank, which was enhanced from time to time and the loan amount reached to Rs.4,00,000/- on 21/02/2002. On failure of the respondents to repay the entire loan, their account was declared as Non - Performing Asset (N.P.A.) and pursuant thereto, a recovery certificate dated 22/11/2002 was issued under S.101 of the MCS Act by the competent authority against respondent Nos.4 to 6. However, the said certificate and subsequent attachment notice was challenged by respondent No.4 by revision petition under S.154 of the MCS Act before respondent No.2 / Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur, in which, the Revisional Authority directed respondent No.3 / Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur to conduct an enquiry after giving opportunity of hearing to the borrowers. On reconsideration of the issue, again certificate under S.101 of the MCS Act came to be issued against the respondents / borrowers for recovery of Rs.7,66,746/- as on 30/01/2005. This certificate and subsequent notice of attachment was made the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.302/2011 before this Court by the respondents. By the order dated 25/04/2011, the writ petition was decided by remanding the matter to respondent No.3 / Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies with the specific direction to extend opportunity of hearing to the borrowers.

7. On this background, the petitioner / Bank again approached respondent No.3 seeking certificate under S.101 of the MCS Act against respondent Nos.4 to 7. While considering the application of the petitioner, respondent No.3 gave due consideration to the submissions advanced by the petitioner / Bank as well as the respondents / borrowers and pertinently, observed that the repayment made by the borrowers were not reflected in the account extracts and the repayments made by respondent No.4 / Sau. Sulochana Kashinath Jangave were wrongly attributed as repayment against the account of respondent No.7 / Yashwant Kashinath Jangave. On noticing these discrepancies and existence of a bona fide dispute, respondent No.3 / Assistant Registrar rejected the application for issuance of recovery certificate under S.101 of the MCS Act.

8. Although Advocate Mr Irpatgire, learned counsel for the petitioner / Bank attempted to point out that respondent Nos.4 to 7 had failed to repay the respective loan amounts, making the petitioner / Bank entitled for recovery certificate under S.101 of the MCS Act, however, the pertinent observations of respondent No.3 with respect to disputed questions of fact and the bona fide