1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11285 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11285 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Kutti for Petitioner. Advocate Mr. Anjanwatikar for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1. 2. Shri Kutti points out that before passing impugned order dated 10th March, 2010 effective opportunity of hearing was denied to petitioner. He states that there is material on record to show that tractor and trolly of petitioner was sold by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 but then while giving credit for that amount in his loan account price fetched by trolly has not been debited. He further contends that substantial amount has been paid to Respondent No.3 by petitioner from time to time. The sale of trolly and that repayment, therefore, needed to be demonstrated before the authority and 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11285 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. for that hearing the Advocate was essential. As that opportunity has been declined, learned counsel contends that petitioner has lost an important right. 3. Learned A.G.P. as also Shri Anjanwatikar support impugned order. They points out that several adjournments were given to the petitioner and when lastly adjournment was being refused, he sought time to engage Advocate. That request was then rejected and matter has been considered. It is further pointed out that the alleged denial of hearing is in proceeding under section 100 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 read with Rule 85 of the Rules framed thereunder. As the immovable property could not be auctioned successfully the Respondent No.3 society invoked section 100 and sought its transfer to itself. They contended that as auction of property itself was permitted, 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11285 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. the transfer to society cannot be challenged by petitioner. It is urged that in absence of challenge to basic proceedings or then to auction proceedings the challenge to orders passed in this proceeding is unsustainable. 4. After hearing respective counsel I find that petitioner was given at-least fifteen adjournments before passing final orders in section 100 proceedings by Respondent No.1. Thereafter, he sought time to engage Advocate and that request was rejected. It is also to be noted that immoveable property transferred to Respondent No.3 bank in terms of section 101 of 1960 Act was earlier put to auction on 16th January, 2009, 26th February, 2009 and 8th May, 2009. The auction could not materialise and hence Respondent No.3 has invoked above mentioned provisions of section 100 of 1960 Act. When there could be no challenge to auction proceedings and there is 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11285 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. no challenge before this Court to this auction proceeding, it is apparent that challenge to impugned order is not sustainable. The impugned order dated 10th March, 2010 is only a consequential order when the auction could not take place. 5. The sale of tractor by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 is admitted. However, sale of trolly is in dispute. According to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 trolly has not been auctioned and, therefore, there is no question of petitioner giving credit for its alleged purchase price. Even if it is presumed that trolly is auctioned and no credit is given to the petitioner therefor, petitioner can always file appropriate proceedings for recovery of alleged recovery in excess by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 6. In the result, I do not find any prejudice caused to the petitioner in the 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 11285 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. matter. The grievance of denial of effective opportunity of hearing is misconceived. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:08/03/2011. ans/11285