1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1004 OF 2010 Baban Shankar More .. Petitioner Vs. Warna Sahakari Bank Ltd., Warnanagar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Chetan Patil for the Petitioner. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 4th February, 2010. P.C. 1. The petitioner took a loan of Rs.7 lacs from respondent No.1 bank in the year 2005. The loan was not repaid. Respondent No.1 got recovery certificate issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act on 29.11.2007. The petitioner contends that he fell within the Loan Waiver Scheme, but the respondent bank did not waive the loan though orally promised. 2. The proclamation for auction has been issued since 20.08.2009. The earlier auction was scheduled on 2 29.09.2009. Instead of calling upon the bank to waive the loan as assured, the petitioner filed revision application. The petitioner claims that he has paid 50% of the amount under the recovery certificate. Upon such payment in that revision application, stay was granted till 01.12.2009. The petitioner has not shown what happened in that revision application after 01.12.2009. Rozanama after 01.12.2009 is not produced. No application appears to have been made. 3. Another proclamation was issued after the stay expired. That proclamation requires auction sale to be held tomorrow. Pursuant to that proclamation the petitioner filed another revision application. The petitioner claims that because he has deposited 50% of the amount under the recovery certificate, he can file another revision application without further deposit. That revision application came for hearing on 03.02.2010. The petitioner wanted further stay. The stay has been refused since rule 107 (11) had been complied by the bank and no irregularity in the auction notice was seen. 3 4. No irregularity in the impugned order is also seen. 5. The petition lacks of bonafides and is dismissed. (R. S. DALVI, J.)