THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.NO.1556 OF 2008 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard both the sides. 2. The 1st respondent in the writ appeal filed writ petition challenging the auction notice dated 25.12.2007 issued by the Sreerangampalle Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited (for short ‘the society’). His case is that his father obtained a loan from the said co-operative society by mortgaging the joint family property and when he committed default, the society initiated legal proceedings and sought to auction the property and when nobody came forward, in the year 2001, with the permission of the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, it purchased the property. Subsequently, it wanted to dispose of the said property and hence auction notice was issued, auction was conducted on 28.1.2008, the property was sold in the said auction for a sum of about Rs.4,92,000/- and the sale proceedings are yet to be concluded. The further case of the writ petitioner is that he got issued a legal notice stating that the property in question is the joint family property and that he filed a suit for partition and the same is pending. The society issued reply stating that under Section 81 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, it has become absolute owner and that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to question the auction, since the original borrower did not question the auction. The writ petitioner also question the validity of the sale in favour of the society. 3. Considering the above facts, the learned single Judge of this court passed the following interim order dated 8.2.2008 in W.P.No.2509/2008: “Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the auction was conducted on 24.1.2008. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed not to confirm the auction conducted on 24.1.2008 until further orders, subject to condition of petitioner depositing half of the due amount within one week.” 4. When the vacate petition was filed by the society in WVMP.No.551/2008 in W.P.No.2509/2008, for vacating the above interim order dated 8.2.2008, this court by order dated 6.9.2008, while making the interim order absolute, passed the following order: “Notice before admission was ordered on 8.2.2008, and interim direction was granted. The 1st respondent has filed counter-affidavit, as well as an application for vacating the interim order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The auction notice dated 25.12.2007, proposing to sell an extent of Acs.5-58 cents of land and structures thereon, is the subject-matter of this writ petition. While the petitioner contends that he was not put on notice, before the property was proceeded with, the 1st respondent states that, way back in the year 2001, the property was brought to sale, on account of the default committed by the father of the petitioner, and that with the permission of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the 1st respondent itself purchased the property. The proposed sale is said to be, not for recovery of any loan, much less from the father of the petitioner. The question, as to whether there existed any valid sale, in favour of the 1st respondent, even as pleaded by them; needs to be examined. It is also pleaded by the 1st respondent that the sale, in pursuance of the impugned notice, has already taken place. This court has already protected the interest of the 1st respondent, by directing the petitioner to pay half of the amount due. It is represented that the amount when paid by the petitioner, was refunded by the 1st respondent. Under these circumstances, the matter needs to be examined in detail. Hence, the interim direction granted by this Court is made absolute.” 5. Challenging the above order of the learned single Judge dated 6.9.2008 passed in WVMP.No.551/2008 in W.P.No.2509/2008, the Society filed the present writ appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant – society contended that when the auction had already taken place, the question of receiving the amount from the 1st respondent – writ petitioner, as directed by this court, in the interim order dated 8.2.2008, will not arise. His contention is that the learned single Judge is not justified in passing the interim order directing to deposit the amount, since the 1st respondent/writ petitioner did not challenge the sale within a reasonable time. His case is that the father of the petitioner who is the original borrower from the society did not question the sale during the year 2001, and hence the writ petitioner is not justified in questioning the sale in the year 2008 and thus he has no locus standi. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner submitted that sale in favour of the society had already been challenged before the Co-operative Tribunal under Section 76 of the Act with a petition to condone the delay of about 7 ½ years. The said application is pending consideration before the Tribunal. Notwithstanding the same, the present writ petition is filed challenging the auction held on 28.1.2008. 8. As pointed out in the impugned order, the validity of the sale in favour of the society has to be decided in the writ petition. The other questions, which are agitated by both the parties, also have to be decided in the writ petition. It is brought to the notice of this court that though sale was effected, by the society, by way of auction, in favour of a third party, the sale deed is not presented for registration. It is also brought to the notice of this court that the actual possession was not given to the auction purchaser, who is neither a party to the writ petition, nor agitating his right before this court and it is virtually the society that is agitating for the cause of the auction purchaser. However, all these aspects have to be considered in the writ petition. 9. Further, by directing the writ petitioner to deposit half of the amount due, by interim order dated 8.2.2008, this court has protected the interest of the society. 10. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant – society. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned interlocutory order passed by the learned single Judge. 11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is ambiguity in the interim order of the learned single Judge dated 8.2.2008, as it was directed to deposit half of the amount due and, therefore, he sought for a clarification. 12. From the above, it could be seen that the property in question was sold in the auction held on 28.1.2008 for a sum of about Rs.4,92,000/- in favour of a third party and if the amount is rounded off, it would come to Rs.5,00,000/- 13. Therefore, we clarify the interim order dated 8.2.2008, directing the writ petitioner to deposit half of the amount due, as under: . “ The writ petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with the appellant – society within a period of eight weeks from today and in case of default, the appellant – society is always at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.” 14. With the above clarification, the writ appeal is disposed of, at the stage of admission. No costs. ------------------------------------- D.S.R.VARMA,J ------------------------------------ G.CHANDRAIH,J DATE:27.11.2008 AVS