IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7500 OF 2008 The Maharashtra Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.,Latur through its Managing Director petitioner Versus The Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune and others. Respondent. Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.N. Patil Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr. K.B. Choudhari, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 25th February, 2010. COURTS ORDER : 1] This petition is filed by the bank, seeking a writ of Mandamus against the respondent No.4 A.P.M.C., to transfer the mortgaged plot together with construction therein, in the name of the auction purchaser as the auction purchaser was the highest bidder in the auction held on 27th April, 2007. One M/s. Nagindas and Company had taken the subject plot on lease from the respondent No.4 and had mortgaged the same with the petitioner bank against which, the petitioner advanced a loan of Rs. Rs. 30 Lakhs. While mortgaging the plot, the APMC has given no objection and the plot was mortgaged with a view to secure the loan advanced. As the borrower failed to repay the loan, the petitioner bank proceeded under the provisions of the Securitization Act and had taken possession of the property and put it to auction, wherein the auction purchaser has purchased the property. 2] According to the respondent No.4, there are certain dues of the agriculturists so also some recovery of the A.P.M.C., the same need to be satisfied. In the above factual background, respondent NO.4 A.P.M.C. has passed a Resolution NO.11, in its meeting held on 10th November, 2009. Under the resolution, the respondent No.4, expects the petitioner to deposit the amount mentioned therein and subject to such deposit, the respondent No.4 has shown its readiness to transfer the property in the name of the auction purchaser. It is also submitted that the respondent No.4 also expects the bank to file an undertaking that in the event any financial and legal implications arise on account of the said transaction, the petitioner shall reimburse the respondent No.4, to the extent of loss suffered by it. 3] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bank is agreeable for the same. In his submission, the bank need to be heard while settling the dues of the agriculturist and the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the respondent NO.4 has no objection to hear the petitioner while settling the dues of the agriculturists. 4] In view of the statements made by the respondent NO.4 in the affidavit in reply and in view of the Resolution No.11 passed by; the respondent No.4 and in the light of the concession made available and recorded in this order by the respective parties, a joint request is made for disposal of the petition. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. [N.D. DESHPANDE,J] [A.P. DESHPANDE,J.] grt/-