ssp 1 WP 7137 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7137 of 2010 Sanjiv Parmanand Bosamia .....Petitioner versus The Special Recovery Officer and Sales Officer and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Nitin P. Deshpande, for the petitioner Mr.K.V.Tambe, for the respondent No.2. Mrs.Kavita Pawar i/by Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar, for respondent No.5. CORAM: RANJIT MORE, J. DATE: 2nd MAY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Tembe, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Mrs.Pawar, appearing for respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner challenged the proposed auction of his property which was scheduled to be held on 09-09-2010. The petitioner also challenges the Panchanama dated 21-02-2009, whereby respondent No.1 took possession of the flat belong to the petitioner in pursuant of the recovery proceedings. 3. By the order dated 07-09-2010, this Court allowed the auction to proceed further, however, directed that final order of sale shall not be passed till further orders. By the subsequent order dated ssp 2 WP 7137 of 2010 21-10-2010, it was further directed that without prior permission of this Court, auction purchaser shall not be put in possession. The above interim reliefs were continued from time to time and are in operation till today. 4. Admittedly, the auction was held on 09-09-2010 and the respondent No.3 being highest bidder, his offer was accepted by respondent No.1. The respondent No.3 has deposited entire purchase money with respondent No.1. The above petition was filed mainly on the ground that the respondent No.1 illegally took possession of the flat of the petitioner and therefore, auction could not be held as the same would be illegal. It is true that respondent No.1 could not have taken possession before the auction. However, in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, the auction was allowed to proceed and the respondent No.3 is a successful bidder. The parties does not dispute that in the absence of possession also, respondent No.1 could have proceeded to auction the property belonging to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that petitioner has challenged the auction proceedings by filing separate revision before the revisional authority under Section 154 of the Co- operative Societies Act. The petitioner’s grievance in my opinion, if any, can be redressed by the revisional authority. In my view, the above petition need not be kept pending. The petitioner’s interest however, can ssp 3 WP 7137 of 2010 be protected by extending interim reliefs for a period of four weeks from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by passing the following order : (1) The writ petition is disposed of. (2) Interim reliefs granted on 07-09-2010 and 21-10-2010 which are continued from time to time, shall continue to operate for a further period of four weeks from today, so as to enable the petitioner to obtain appropriate reliefs from the revisional authority. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case and the revisional authority shall dispose of the revision, expeditiously, independently and on its own merits. ( RANJIT MORE, J. )