1 wp 8755.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8755 OF 2010 Jijabai w/o Tanku Patil, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o At Post Ghumawal, Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Co-operation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chopada at Chopada. 3. The Administrator, The Chopada Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pankaj Plaza, Main Road, Chopada, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. The Chopada Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pankaj Plaza, Main Road, Chopada, Dist. Jalgaon. Through its Manager. 5. The Chopada Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pankaj Plaza, 2 wp 8755.10 Main Road, Chopada, Dist. Jalgaon. Through its Special Recovery and Sales Officer. .. .. Respondents Shri D. B. Thoke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri P. S. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner assails the public notice of auction. 3. Shri Thoke, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Special Recovery Officer will only get a power to proceed under Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules if there is recovery certificate in favour of the bank. In the present case, no recovery certificate is issued against the petitioner, still the Special Recovery Officer is proceeding to auction the property of the petitioner. 3 wp 8755.10 4. Shri Gaikwad, the learned counsel for the respondent/bank submits that it was mistake on the part of the Assistant Registrar while issuing recovery certificate that the name of the petitioner was not included in the recovery certificate. In the loan application the name of the petitioner is mentioned and even she has mortgaged her property with the bank. Because of the mistake of the Assistant Registrar, the respondent/bank should not suffer, as the property is already mortgaged. The special recovery officer has every right to take action. 5. It is not disputed by the respondents that the name of the petitioner does not appear in the recovery certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar. Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Rules would come into operation after the recovery certificate is issued. The action taken is not pursuant to any Securitisation Act or under any other law, but is purely an action of execution of recovery certificate which is not permissible. 6. In the light of the above, the act of the Special Recovery Officer in putting the property of the petitioner to auction under Rule 107 is without jurisdiction and the same deserves to be 4 wp 8755.10 quashed and set aside. The respondent/bank is at liberty to take appropriate steps as is permissible in the law against the petitioner. 7. The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "C". No costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11