1 of 2 27-wp-7526-23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7526 OF 2023 Ananda Kundalik Wagh ..Petitioner Versus Shree Narsinh nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit & Ors. ..Respondents __________ Ms. Hemangi D. Pathare for Petitioner. Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for State/ Respondent. __________ CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATE : 04 NOVEMBER 2025 PC : 1. The present petition challenges a series of orders passed by the Assistant Registrar, Special Recovery Officer and also questions the notice issued by the Collector for taking possession of the property. The grievance of the petitioner arises from the recovery proceedings initiated under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 2. On examining the order dated 13 January 2023, it is clear that the attachment order rests upon the recovery certificate issued under Section 101 of the MCS Act. The issuance of such certificate creates a legally enforceable liability, and the Recovery Officer is empowered to take steps for attachment and sale of the hypothecated property. Unless and until the petitioner succeeds in Gokhale VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2025.11.04 17:37:33 +0530 2 of 2 27-wp-7526-23 obtaining an order for cancellation or modification of the said certificate under the procedure provided in the Act, the Special Recovery Officer is well within his jurisdiction to proceed with attachment of the hypothecated vehicle. 3. The Revisional Authority has considered these aspects and has rightly upheld the attachment order dated 13 January 2023. The confirmation of the order is thus supported by the material on record and by the statutory scheme governing execution of recovery certificates. 4. As regards the petitioner’s other prayers challenging the recovery certificate itself and the consequential notice issued by the Special Recovery Officer, such reliefs can be pursued only before the competent authority under the provisions of the MCS Act. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when statutory remedies remain unexhausted, particularly in matters involving factual disputes or execution of recovery proceedings. 5. In view of this legal position, all contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the validity of the recovery certificate and recovery process are kept open to be agitated before the appropriate forum as provided by law. The petition, therefore, does not call for further interference and stands disposed of accordingly. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)