1 wp5589 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5589 OF 2010 Tanaji Dattu Chalke ...Petitioner vs. Megha Ashok Gangadhar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.T.S.Ingale for the Petitioner Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P for the respondent nos.8 & 9 Mr.N.J.Patil for respondent no.2 & 3 Mr.Amit Sale for respondent nos.1 and 6 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 19, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned counsel for 2nd and 3rd respondents and learned A.G.P for 8th and 9th respondents. Considering the fact that the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order, the petition is forthwith taken up for final hearing. 2 The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 30th March 2010 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar on a revision application filed by the first respondent. 3 The second respondent Bank obtained a recovery certificate against the first respondent and others. In execution of the recovery certificate, a property was attached and was put to auction. The 2 wp5589 petitioner is the auction purchaser. By the impugned order, an auction sale and the order of confirmation of sale have been set aside. 4 Apart from various other submissions, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was a necessary and proper party to the revision application and the petitioner ought to have been heard before passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the first respondent on instructions states that the application made by the petitioner for intervention in the revision application has been rejected. 5 The effect of the impugned order is that the auction sale which was confirmed in favour of the petitioner has been set aside. In view of section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as the petitioner was likely to be directly affected by the result of the revision application, the petitioner ought to have been impleaded as a party to the revision application. It was the duty of the revisional authority to ensure that all affected persons are parties to the revision application. The application made by the petitioner before the revisional authority ought to have been allowed. Hence, impugned order will have to be set aside only on the ground that the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order. 6 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and Order dated 30th March 3 wp5589 2010 is quashed and set aside and the Revision Application no.143 of 2009 is restored to the file of the Divisional Joint Registrar. ii)The first respondent shall implead the present petitioner as a party to the Revision Application. iii)The petitioner, first respondent and second and third respondents are directed to remain present in the office of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur on 5th August 2011 at 11.00 a.m for fixing the schedule of hearing of the Revision Application. iv)Revision application shall be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible on its own merits. v) All contentions of the parties on merits of the Revision Application are kept open. vi)Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE