SSK/ 1 WP.3989.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3989 OF 2010 Smt. Indira Shirish Gandhi ....Petitioner Versus Special Recovery Officer & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. C. M. Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Manoj Nayak, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 & 4. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for respondent nos. 5 to 7. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 26th APRIL, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4, and Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP for respondent nos. 5 to 7. 2. By the impugned order, the petitioner’s revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 is rejected. The respondent no.2 obtained recovery certificate under Section 101 against the respondent nos. 3 and 4. In pursuant of this certificate, the suit property SSK/ 2 WP.3989.10 belonging to the respondent nos. 3 & 4 bearing No.371, Datta Nivas, Bhumkar Path, Kothrud, Pune – 29 admeasuring about 1680 sq. ft. was attached. This property was put on auction by the respondent no.1 by publishing an advertisement in Daily Sakal on 31st July, 2003. The auction took place on 6th September, 2003. The petitioner was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.10,08,000/-. On the date of auction, the petitioner deposited 15% of the bid amount and under the provisions of Rule 107 (11) (h) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, it was mandatory for the petitioner to deposit the remaining 85% of the amount within a period of 15 days. The period of 15 days expired on 21st September, 2003, however, the petitioner failed to deposit this amount. 3. The first respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner on 16th September, 2003 and granted 30 days’ time to deposit remaining 85% of the amount. Before the expiry of this 30 days, the respondent nos. 3 & 4 filed a dispute and in the said dispute, the Corporative Court injuncted respondent no.1-Bank on 3rd October, 2003 from taking possession of the auctioned property. Ultimately, the petitioner deposited the balance amount of 85% on 21st May, 2005 and on 18th January, 2006, the Deputy Registrar after hearing the parties confirmed the auction sale held on 6th September, 2003 and sale certificate was issued on 24th February, 2006. SSK/ 3 WP.3989.10 4. The respondent nos. 3 & 4 challenged the confirmation of sale by filing revision. In this revision, earlier confirmation of sale was set-aside and the matter was remanded back. After remand, the Deputy Registrar heard the parties afresh and set-aside the proposal for the confirmation. This order was challenged in revision, however, the revision as stated above was dismissed by the impugned order. The Revisional Authority relied upon the provisions of Rule 107 (11) (h) of the MCS Rules, 1961 under which the petitioner was duty bound to deposit balance 85% amount within a period of 15 days from the date of auction. The learned Divisional Joint Registrar also relied upon the ratio of decision of this Court in Nandkishor Daultrao Shelke V/s. Baban Vitthal Mhaske reported in 2005(3) ALL MR 131 in which it is observed that while auctioning the property, the mandatory provisions of the Rules are required to be strictly followed. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has not deposited the balance 85% amount within a period of 15 days from the date of auction. The contention of the petitioner is that this amount could not be deposited because of the letter of the respondent no.1 allowing him to deposit the balance amount of 85% within a period of one month. The fact remains that within a period of one month from the date of deposit of 15% bid amount, the petitioner has not deposited the balance amount of 85%. The petitioner wants to contend that this amount could not be deposited as there was order of status-quo by the Co-operative Court. However, I find that the SSK/ 4 WP.3989.10 status-quo was regarding the possession and there was no status-quo order injuncting the petitioner from depositing the balance amount of 85% with the respondent no.1. 5. In the above circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition and, therefore, no interference with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 6. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 at this stage makes a statement that respondent nos. 3 & 4 will deposit an amount equivalent to the auction price of the property in question with the respondent no.2-Bank within a period of three weeks from today. The statement is accepted. 7. Mr. Kothari, learned counsel, at this stage seeks continuation of the interim relief. By the interim relief, the operation of the impugned order was stayed. Under the impugned order, the petitioner’s revision was rejected and, therefore, no purpose will be served by staying the impugned order. The request is, therefore, rejected. (RANJIT MORE, J.)