1 wp7471-72.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7471 OF 2009 Parsharam Laxman Wadar ...Petitioner vs. Abhay Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Kowad, Taluka Chandgad, Dist.Kolhapur and ors. ...Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7472 OF 2009 Vithal Parsharam Wadar ...Petitioner vs. Abhay Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Kowad, Taluka Chandgad, Dist.Kolhapur and ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the petitioner in both petitions Mr.G.N.Salunkhe for the respondent no.1 in both the petitions Ms M.S.Bane, A.G.P for respondent no.3 in both the petitions CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 30,2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The recovery certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960 was issued against the petitioner. In revision application filed by the petitioner, the order granting recovery certificate was modified by directing that the amount under the recovery certificate can be recovered by charging a simple 2 wp7471-72.sxw interest after appropriating the amount credited by the applicant after issuance of the recovery certificate. In execution of the recovery certificate, the property of the petitioner was put to auction. Auction sale was conducted on 12th June 2008. A revision application was preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the auction sale. The said revision application has been rejected by the impugned order. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the prayer clause (b) in the revision application and submitted that after paying more than 50% of the amount, the petitioner had shown willingness to pay balance amount provided proper extract of account depicting the legal dues payable by the petitioner was supplied to the petitioner. He submitted that in view of the order passed in revision against recovery certificate, the first respondent ought to have supplied correct figures of the amount due by the petitioner. He submitted that though the petitioner was ready and willing to pay entire amount due as per the recovery certificate, the property of the petitioner was put to auction. He submitted that under the circumstances, the revisional authority ought to have set aside the order of auction. 3 I have considered the submissions. The revision application challenging the recovery certificate was decided in May 2008. Auction was already held on 12th June 2008. Admittedly, the petitioner did not apply for setting aside the auction sale by making an application either under sub-Rule 13 or under Sub-rule 14 of the Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. 3 wp7471-72.sxw 4 In view of this admitted position, the revisional authority was justified in not entertaining the revision application. The auction purchaser has deposited the entire sale price. 5 In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ petitions are rejected. 6 If amount in excess of the amount payable under the recovery certificate has been received by the first respondent after taking into consideration the amount of the sale proceeds, the excess amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. JUDGE