1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5014/2009. ( Smt. Shantabai Shrinivasji Singhee ..versus... The Akola District Central Cooperative Bank and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 11, 2010. Heard Shri B.N. Mohta, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri A.P. Tathod, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 4 and 5. Grievance of petitioners before this Court in respect of order dated 24.07.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4245/2006, fresh procedure for re- auctioning of Tractor and Trolley has not been undertaken. It is pointed out that by the impugned order dated 18.07.2009, passed in Revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, the respondent no.5 has only directed the respondent no.1 Bank to determine the value of Tractor and Trolley and thereafter to deposit that amount in the loan account of present petitioners. Amount of Rs. 1,21,000/- fetched in auction on 21.02.2003 is directed to be credited to loan account of petitioner no.1 with interest at 9%. 2 Shri Mohta, learned counsel points out that the order of learned Single Judge, mentioned supra, has been maintained and Letters Patent Appeal filed against it has been withdrawn. All these facts are not looked into by respondent no.5 while deciding the revision. His further grievance is in view of the clear provision of law, Tractor and trolley were exempt from attachment and in any case, because of subsequent policy of Government to loan liability is wiped off, hence at this stage according to him there is no question of any re-auction and the Tractor and Trolley needs to be surrendered back to petitioners along with the damages. Shri Tathod, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 4 and 5 support the impugned order. Respondent no.6 is the person who has purchased that Tractor and trolley in auction conducted on 29.02.2003 and he has chosen not to appear before this Court, though he is served with the notice for final disposal. On 20.11.2009 this Court has restrained him from creating any third party interest of any encumbrance on the Tractor and Trolley. Learned counsel for respondents state that the grievance about extinguishment of loan liability or as attachment of Tractor and Trolley for loan recovery cannot be made at this stage, because earlier orders passed in the matter have attained finality and no grievance was made by the present petitioners against those orders. Writ Petition No. 4245/2006 was filed by the Bank and Letters Patent Appeal against the direction to hold re-auction was again filed by the Bank only. 3 Shri Mohta, learned counsel points out that the policy of government by which loan liability of petitioner is wiped off is subsequent to these events and orders. The facts clearly show that the order dated 24.07.2007 in Writ Petition No. 4245/2006 has attained finality and therefore it needs to be implemented and order impugned dated 18.07.2009 further lacks its effect. Though the argument that Tractor and Trolley could not have been attached for recovery of that loan liability is being made at this stage, it is apparent that the said argument is not open as at earlier auction no challenge thereto was made by the present petitioners. The order of re-auction therefore can only be relied upon by them and if legally any advantage is available to them, they can take the same out of it. If the loan liability was in existence and has been wiped out subsequently, the question of re-auction in that event can be raised by them before the Competent Authority and the Authority is duty bound to consider the same in accordance with the law. In this view of the matter, I find that the order dated 18.07.2009 cannot be sustained, the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to arrange for re-auction of the Tractor and Trolley in accordance with the law by following the procedure prescribed in Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost. JUDGE. Rgd.