1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1304/2010 ( Maharana Pratap Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit and others -: VERSUS :- Prashant D. Raut ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.V. Sohoni, Adv. for petitioners. Shantanu Ghate, Adv. for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 28, 2010. Head finally with consent. Short grievance raised by Adv. Shri Sohoni is after the challenge to attachment and auction of their property before the Joint Registrar under section 154 of Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act the petitioners filed proceedings under section 91 before Co-operative Court and obtained an ex parte stay. The petitioners joined the Co-operative Society and auction purchasers as party respondents. The petitioner society and auction purchasers filed their applications and auction purchasers gave their no objection to set aside the auction while petitioner society challenged the jurisdiction of Co-operative Court. Without deciding that issue the Co- operative Court is continuing the interim orders to the prejudice of petitioners and auction purchasers. He has relied upon several judgments filed along with pursis to urge 2 that under Co-operative Societies Act there are two independent Forums and challenge of the respondents could not have been shifted to Co-operative Court under section 91. Adv. Shri Ghate with Adv. Shri Gawli for respondent point out that auction purchasers filed their reply to applications before Co-operative Court and in fact gave no objection to auction sale. He invites attention to one of the prayers made in the writ petition that petitioners including auction purchasers have prayed that auction sale should be set aside. His argument is because of this situation the Co-operative Court has not yet decided the challenges raised by petitioner no.1. He states that because of interim orders granted by Co- operative Court auction sale has not been confirmed by Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Adv. Shri Sohoni states that petitioners do not want to press prayer no.3 and want an adjudication on merits in the matter. Right from judgment of Divisional Bench of This Court in 1980 Mh.L.J. 4 (K.V. Sundaram & others V/s. Rajrajeshwari Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & others) the Law is well settled. The two distinct Forums founded under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act are well recognized and their jurisdiction is exclusive. The challenge to attachment and auction has to be before the Assistant Registrar i.e. Registrar and petitioners have already failed in that challenge. During arguments, Adv. Shri Ghate has pointed out that petitioners are pointing out illegalities which took place during conduct of auction. He, therefore, states that subject matter of challenge before Registrar and Co-operative Court 3 is different. It is clear that petitioners can assail alleged illegalities before the Assistant Registrar and assail the prayer for confirmation of auction. As another avenue is available to present petitioners, it is clear that they could not have invoked the jurisdiction of Co-operative Court in the present matter. Dispute filed by them before the Co-operative Court is not maintainable. At this stage, Adv. Shri Ghate stats that petitioner should be given time of 8 weeks to take further steps regarding challenge in relation to auction or confirmation of auction before the appropriate Forum. Adv. Shri Sohoni is opposing the request and states that the respondent must be called upon to deposit some amount. Considering the nature of controversy, I am inclined to give time to respondent of three weeks to take further appropriate steps in the matter. The interim order passed by Co-operative Court shall continue in the meanwhile as the order of this Court and same shall cease to operate thereafter. Writ petition is thus partly allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties to maintain status-quo as on today for a period of three weeks and direction shall cease to operate automatically thereafter. The rival contentions about the auction proceedings are left open to be raised before appropriate Forum. Rule made absolute Accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.