1 78 wp.2140.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2140 OF 2011 Sadashiv Keshav Bhakade. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents ­­­­­ Mr. A.M.Joshi for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.S.Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Surel S. Shah for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr. P.B.Gujar for Respondent No.6. ­­­­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 08 th August, 2011. P.C. 1 On 17 th March, 2011, this Court issued notice for final disposal. 2 The Petitioner filed a revision application under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960 before the Divisional Joint Registrar for challenging the auction. The revision application has been dismissed by impugned order dated 24 th November, 2010 on the on the ground of non­compliance with Sub­ 2 78 wp.2140.11 Section 2(A) of Section 154 of the said Act of 1960. In the order dated 17 th March, 2011, this Court has recorded the statement of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is ready to comply with the requirement of sub­Section 2(A) of Section 154 of the said Act of 1960. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that the revision application is not competent as there is no challenge therein to the recovery certificate under Section 101 of the said Act of 1960. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Padanathil Ruqmini Amma Vs. P.K. Abdulla, [(1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 668] and submitted that in no case, the auction purchaser can be disturbed. I have heard the learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3 The impugned order has been passed only on the ground of non­compliance with the requirements of Sub­Section 2(A) of Section 154 of the said Act of 1960. The impugned order records that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/­ has been deposited by the Petitioner. In such a situation, before dismissing the revision application on the said ground, 3 78 wp.2140.11 the Divisional Joint Registrar could have always granted a reasonable time to the Petitioner to deposit the balance amount. However, the revision application has been dismissed by the impugned order. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents are on merits of the revision application. As the revision application has been dismissed only on the ground of non­compliance with the statutory requirement of deposit, at this stage, the merits of the revision application need not be gone into. The Revisional Authority will have to consider all the aspects on merits. 4 This Court has granted ad­interim relief on 17 th March, 2011. The said ad­interim relief deserves to be continued to enable the Petitioner to apply for appropriate interim relief in the revision application. 5 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned decree dated 24 th November, 2010 is quashed and set aside subject to condition that the Petitioner shall make 4 78 wp.2140.11 compliance with the requirement of Sub­Section 2(A) of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co­ operative Societies Act, 1960 by depositing the requisite amount within a period of four weeks from today ; ii. If the balance amount is not paid within the stipulated time of four weeks, the Revision Application No.324 of 2010 shall stand dismissed for non­prosecution without further reference to the Court ; iii. Ad­interim relief granted on 17 th March, 2011 will continue to operate for a period of eight weeks from today ; iv. It is made clear that notwithstanding the grant of ad­interim relief, the prayer made by the Petitioner for grant of ad­interim relief before the Revisional Authority shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced by the grant of ad­interim relief by this Court ; v. All the contentions of the parties on merits are 5 78 wp.2140.11 kept open ; and vi. The writ petition is allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]