Civil Writ Petition No.23272 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.23272 of 2011 Date of Decision:14.12.2011 Karnail Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.D.S.Bali, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Note: The record of previous connected Civil Writ Petition No.12566 of 2000 titled as Rajinder Partap Singh and another Versus State of Haryana and others(mentioned in the index of the present writ petition) perused. 2. The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, M/s Maruti Steel Enterprises, Dera Bassi(respondent No.4) had obtained a loan of `3.25 lacs, by way of cash credit limit on 07.07.1992, from the Panchkula Central Cooperative Bank Limited (respondent No.3)(for brevity “the Cooperative Bank”). Hoshiar Singh(since deceased) father of Rajinder Partap Singh and Yaduvansh Partap Singh(respondent Nos.5 and 6) mortgaged his property in lieu of the surety against the said loan. 3. Sequelly, since, Shamsher Singh, partner of main loanee (Respondent No.4) had died and did not pay the entire amount, so, the Cooperative Bank initiated the recovery proceedings from the LRs of the guarantor. Ultimately, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Naraingarh, fixed the Civil Writ Petition No.23272 of 2011 2 date of sale through auction of the mortgaged property vide order dated 08.08.2000. The stay application filed by private respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the revision petition was dismissed as well by the Joint Secretary, to Government of Haryana, Cooperation Department, by virtue of order dated 06.09.2000. 4. Still aggrieved, private respondent Nos.5 and 6 preferred the earlier Civil Writ Petition bearing No.12566 of 2000, challenging the order dated 08.08.2000 of the Assistant Registrar and the order dated 06.09.2000 of the Revisional Authority. A Division Bench of this Court, while issuing notice of motion, stayed the proposed indicated auction, by way of order dated 18.09.2000 and finalisation of the auction was stayed vide order dated 21.09.2000. 5. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the earlier Civil Writ Petition (No.12566 of 2000), respondent No.5 moved an application(Annexure P-2) to the Registrar, Cooperation Department, for settlement of the accounts of the original loanee/guarantor. The Registrar referred the matter, which was considered by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 31.10.2011, wherein it was resolved that the LRs of the guarantor ( respondent Nos.5 and 6) be advised to deposit the entire loan amount along with interest & expenses and on depositing the entire amount, their mortgaged property be released. Similarly, it was also decided that the initial deposited auction amount be returned to M/s R.K.Financial(petitioner), proposed auction purchaser, along with saving interest, by means of impugned resolution dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure P-4). 6. Aggrieved by the resolution, Karnail Singh-petitioner, claiming himself to be the partner of M/s R.K.Financial (proposed auction purchaser), preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned proceedings (Annexure P-4), mainly, on the ground of violations of the provisions of The Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) and that the Cooperative Bank has connived with the private respondent Nos.5 and 6, inter se settled their dispute and ignored its(petitioner) claim. On the basis of Civil Writ Petition No.23272 of 2011 3 aforesaid allegations, the petitioner filed the writ petition against the respondents, in the manner indicated hereinabove. 7. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his Humble and valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this respect. 8. Ex facie, the argument of the learned Senior counsel that, since respondent Nos.5 and 6 did not move any application under Section 77 of the Act, so, the petitioner could not be deprived of his right in the mortgaged property, being the proposed auction purchaser, lacks merit. 9. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the petitioner is claiming himself to be the proposed auction purchaser and the actual sale-deed has neither been effected nor confirmed and registered in this respect. 10. As is clear that, Chapter X of the Act provides the statutory procedure of sale, confirmation, execution and registration of the sale-deed. Sequelly, Section 75 of the Act escalates the circumstances, in which, power of sale of the mortgaged property is to be exercised. Section 76 of the Act postulates that in exercise of the power of sale conferred by section 75, the society or any person duly authorised by the society, may apply to the sale officer appointed in that behalf under section 84 to sell the mortgaged property or any part thereof and such officer shall, after giving notice in writing to all the persons referred to in section 75, sell such property in the manner prescribed subject to any previous charge on the basis of a registered deed. The sale shall be by a public auction and shall be held in the village, where the mortgaged property is situated. Sub-Section (3) of this Section further authorises the Registrar to set aside the sale of the mortgaged property. Section 77 of the Act provides the procedure for setting aside the sale. 11. A plain and meaningful reading of Sections 72 to 77 of Chapter X of Civil Writ Petition No.23272 of 2011 4 the Act would reveal that the sale of the property will be completed, only when all the essential ingredients, as depicted hereinabove, are complete and not otherwise. 12. As indicated earlier, since the sale-deed has neither been executed, nor registered, as contemplated under Chapter X of the Act, so, the petitioner, who claims himself to be a proposed auction purchaser, did not have any legal right, title or interest in the mortgaged property. The Registrar was well within his jurisdiction, to refer the application(Annexure P-2) filed by respondent No.5, for settlement of accounts, to the Board of the Directors of the Cooperative Bank. Thereafter, the Board of Directors have duly considered the matter and resolved to direct them(respondent Nos.5 and 6), to deposit the entire amount along with interest & expenses and then to release their mortgaged property. Therefore, the petitioner did not have any right, to challenge the impugned resolution(Annexure P-4) in this relevant connection. Hence, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto-sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. December 14, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No