CWP No.4810 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.4810 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.4.2010 Santosh Kumari Soni ...Petitioner Versus The Sales Officer, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing auction notice dated 15.2.2008, Annexure P-4, issued by respondent No.2 under Section 63 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 read with Rule 72 II (e) of the Rules framed thereunder and subsequent proceedings initiated for auction of house belonging to the petitioner. Brief factual background of the case is that the petitioner secured a house building loan of Rs.50,000/- from erstwhile Himalaya Cooperative Building Society, Ludhiana. The said society was subsequently merged in its successor body, respondent No.6. For the CWP No.4810 of 2010 2 purpose of taking loan, the petitioner mortgaged her house situated in Joshi Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana. It was agreed between the petitioner and society that on the loan advanced, interest @ 15% per annum would be paid. Certain amounts were thereafter deposited by the petitioner. However, due to non-payment of rest of the amount, auction notice, Annexure P-4 dated 15th February, 2008 was issued by District Manager Housefed, Ludhiana. Aggrieved, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that pursuant to auction notice, a legal notice dated 16.1.2009 (Annexure P-6) was served on the District Manager Housefed, but no response was received. According to counsel, the bonafides of the petitioner are proved from the fact that she deposited certain amounts. However, due to miscalculation of balance amount by the bank, she was being harassed. Even title deeds of her property were not being returned to her. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The auction notice, which is under challenge, is dated 15th February, 2008. The same has been impugned after lapse of more than two years in the instant writ petition. In case pursuant to the said notice, auction of the property has already taken place, the present petition is misconceived. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to explain why the auction notice has been impugned after so much delay. As regards miscalculation of the outstanding loan amount, it is a disputed CWP No.4810 of 2010 3 question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon in writ jurisdiction of this court. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 28.4.2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No