Bombay High Court
VEEJ KAMGAR CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD THROUGH SECRETARYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court held that the petition is not maintainable as it pertains to a purely contractual matter and therefore no direction under Article 226 can be issued.
Summary
The petitioner, Veej Kamgar Co-operative Credit Society, sought a writ directing Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd (MSEDCL) to accept two cheques issued by respondent No.6 and to refund the amounts to the society's members after recovering them from employees' salaries. The society had been appointed by MSEDCL to collect electricity dues and had a contract with respondent No.6, who allegedly collected amounts from consumers but failed to deposit them with MSEDCL, leading the society to recover the sums from its employees. The petitioner relied on a prior judgment (Writ Petition No.13367 of 2017) asserting its right to recover amounts under a recovery certificate. The court examined whether the matter was a contractual dispute and whether it fell within the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution. It held that the issue was purely contractual, that the petitioner could pursue recovery through appropriate legal means, and that there was no substantive ground for a writ. Consequently, the petition was disposed without any direction to MSEDCL.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a direction under Article 226 to compel MSEDCL to accept the cheques and refund the amounts.
- Whether the petition raises a maintainable substantive issue or is merely a contractual dispute.
- Whether the petitioner is free to pursue recovery through civil proceedings under the recovery certificate.
Subjects
- contractual dispute
- Article 226
- writ petition
- cheque acceptance
- MSEDCL
- recovery certificate
- civil jurisdiction
- co-operative credit society
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41352-DB
921-WP.846.2010.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
921 WRIT PETITION NO. 846 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10038 OF 2026
IN WP/846/2010
Veej Kamgar Co Operative Credit So Ltd Through Secretary Rajkumar
Baburao Jadhav
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra And Ors
...
Mr. S. L. Bhapkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. U. S. Malte (through VC), Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.
Mr. U. B. Bilolikar, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
...
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard Mr. Bhapkar, learned advocate for the petitioner,
Mr. Lokhande, learned AGP for respondent no.1-State, Mr. Malte,
learned advocate for respondent nos.2 to 5 and Mr. Bilolikar, learned
advocate for respondent no.6.
2. The prayer in the petition is to direct M.S.E.D.C.L. i.e.
respondent nos.2 to 5 to accept cheques dated 27.11.2009 and
25.12.2009 for amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.30,23,500/-
respectively, allegedly issued by respondent no.6 in favour of
respondent nos.2 to 5. It is further prayed for a direction to the
Sayyed 1/4
921-WP.846.2010.doc
company to encash the said cheques and refund the amounts to the
members of the petitioner-society, which are recovered from the
salary of this petitioner.
3. On going through the submissions, it is seen that respondent
nos.2 to 5 had appointed the petitioner as an agent to collect the
dues for the charges of electricity from its consumers. The petitioner-
society, in turn, had entered into a contract with respondent no.6 for
the said purpose. It is the case of the petitioner that, though
respondent no.6 collected amount from the consumers, he did not
deposit the amount with respondent nos.2 to 5. The respondents,
however, recovered the amount from the society. The society paid the
amount by recovering the same from the salaries of its employees.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, when respondent no.6
had been to the respondents with the cheques, M.S.E.D.C.L. did not
accept the said cheques. A direction is, therefore, sought to accept the
cheques and to deposit the cheque/amount with respondent nos.2 to
5, and thereafter, to refund the said amount to the employees of the
petitioner-society from whose salaries the amount which is already
recovered.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner further relies upon the
order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.13367 of 2017 dated
Sayyed 2/4
921-WP.846.2010.doc
09.10.2025, wherein this Court had clarified that the order will not
preclude the petitioner to take appropriate steps for the recovery, in
pursuance of recovery certificate in accordance with law. Learned
advocate for the petitioner has placed on record additional affidavit
alongwith documents. The same is taken on record.
6. This Court finds that this is purely a contractual matter. It was
open for the petitioner to prosecute the recovery and to start recovery
proceedings against respondent no.6. It is also now brought on
record that in the meantime, the society has obtained recovery
certificate against members of the managing body of the petitioner-
society which was then functioning. The recovery certificate is issued
on 10.05.2022. Be that as it may, this Court finds that it is open for
the petitioner to make a recovery in whatever manner permissible
under law from the concerned persons.
7. It is also pointed out during the course of argument by Mr.
Malte that the M.S.E.D.C.L. did not accept the cheques from
respondent no.6 for the reason that the contract was with the
petitioner-society and thus there was no question of accepting
amount from anyone else other than the society.
8. Considering all above, this Court need not issue any direction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no substance
Sayyed 3/4
921-WP.846.2010.doc
in the writ petition. Except the liberty granted above, this Court
cannot entertain the petition. Petition, therefore, stands disposed off.
9. Pending civil application(s), if any, stand disposed off.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
Sayyed 4/4
Checking your session…