THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.33434 of 2011 Date: 21.12.2011 Between: Mahesh Lalwani and others. … Petitioners and The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Officer on Special Duty, City Circle, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.33434 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri Dinesh Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. 2. The petitioners, who claim to be the owners of mulgies bearing Nos.10, 11 and 12, situated in the premises bearing No.15-1-522 to 525, Siddiambar Bazar, Watan Plaza Building Complex, Hyderabad, have filed this writ petition assailing the auction notice issued by the 1st respondent-Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, City Circle, Hyderabad, in E.P.No.417/2001/OSD/VCUB, dated 19.11.2011, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased the aforesaid property from the 3rd respondent and others under a registered document No.9/2003, dated 2.1.2003 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Thus, they contend that the proposed sale is without jurisdiction. In support of the said contention, they rely on the registered sale deed dated 2.1.2003 executed by the 3rd respondent and others. 4. I am unable to agree with the said contention. 5. Prior to the sale of the said property to the petitioners, the 3rd respondent availed loan from the 2nd respondent-Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad, by mortgaging the said property. As the 3rd respondent committed default in repayment of loan, which amounted to Rs.61,72,667/- as on 31.12.1997, proceedings were initiated against him for recovery of the said amount. The 3rd respondent challenged the said proceedings by filing an appeal in C.T.A.No.12 of 2008 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and the same was dismissed by order dated 1.5.2009. Challenging the said order, the 3rd respondent filed W.P.No.24084 of 2009 and obtained interim order staying the E.P. proceedings subject to the condition of the 3rd respondent depositing the entire principal amount along with 9% simple interest within six weeks from 26.4.2010. As the 3rd respondent did not comply with the said order, the impugned proceedings are initiated under Rule 52 (11)(e) of A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 for sale of the mortgaged property. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners have purchased the subject property from the 3rd respondent, who had mortgaged the said property to the 2nd respondent Bank much prior to the said sale to the petitioners. The 2nd respondent, therefore, brought the subject property to sale by following due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. Since the subject property was already encumbered by way of mortgage to the 2nd respondent Bank, subsequent purchase by the petitioners will not confer any rights on them. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent has suffered a decree, which has been confirmed by the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal. 7. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that simply because the petitioners have purchased the subject property, the same does not confer any rights on them to challenge the auction notification. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. 9. In view of disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.41562 of 2011 is dismissed as unnecessary. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 21.12.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.33434 of 2011 21.12.2011 (Msr)