1 wp10559.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10559 OF 2010 Ravindra S/o Tukaram Sarode and others. PETITIONERS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10560 OF 2010 ِAvinash S/o Tukaram Sarode and others. PETITIONERS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10561 OF 2010 Tukaram S/o Narayan Sarode and others. PETITIONERS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for petitioners. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Miss. S.P. Mahajan, Advocate for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. ..... 2 wp10559.10 (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 27th January, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Advocate Mr. V.D. Salunke has placed reliance upon the Judgment of Single Judge reported at "2007(4) Bom. C.R. 350" (Khushal Narayanrao Mundhe V/s State of Maharashtra and others), to urge that when R.R.C. issued is found to be without any notice to the petitioners and the procedure prescribed in Rules is not followed, the bar of alternate remedy can not be used. He invited attention to the alleged order sheet maintained by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, which only shows two endorsements without any signatures of Assistant Registrar. He, therefore state that when R.R.C. was issued behind the back of respective petitioners and auction also has been conducted clandestinely, Petitions needs to be entertained. He points out that after getting knowledge of proposed auction, the petitioners approached and offered to deposit some amount and that offer was accepted. He further states that in such a situation, the bank could not have proceeded further with auction. Learned counsel states that everything has been done high handedly. 2. Miss. Mahajan for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 in all the matters as also the learned A.G.P. for Assistant Registrar is 3 wp10559.10 supporting the proceedings as completed. They state that the auction is long over and possession is also handed over to highest bidder. The sale is also confirmed in accordance with law. Learned A.G.P. has produced before this Court copy of acknowledgment and envelope allegedly containing the endorsement of refusal of notice by petitioners. 3. After hearing respective Counsel on earlier occasion this Court had asked learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 to place on record proof of service of notice issued in R.R.C. proceedings upon the petitioners or then proof of his allegedly refusal. The documents (Photostat copies) tendered today are in response to that order. Learned Counsel for petitioners is not accepting those documents. He states that the copies of those documents are not even made available to him. 4. Perusal of the documents as filed along with Petition particularly Exhibit-B with Writ Petition No. 10561 of 2010 shows that the first date of hearing was 23.07.2008 and the second date of hearing was 28.08.2008. On first day, it is mentioned that nobody was present either for borrower or guarantor. One Sunil Kshatriya, Manager is shown to be present for bank. This endorsement is signed only by Shri. Kshatriya, there is no 4 wp10559.10 signature anywhere of Assistant Registrar or any person from his office. Second endorsement thereafter is dated 28.08.2008. The endorsement is more or less identical and signature appearing below it appears to be of Mr. Kshatriya. In short, Assistant Registrar has not recorded that the notices were served upon the petitioners and still they were absent. 5. As the Photostat copies shown to this Court today were not handed over to the Counsel for petitioners, it is not possible to co- relate those Photostat with above two orders sheets. 6. Sale process is already over. Auction has been conducted. Efforts of the petitioners is to demonstrate that they got knowledge first only because of said public notice and then to show their bonafide they deposited certain amount. Efforts of respondent nos. 3 to 5 i.e. purchasers and Bank is to show to this Court time given to petitioners even after the said deposit to clear the balance amount and recourse to sale proceedings only because of their default in paying the same. 7. I am satisfied that several disputed questions arises here and same can not be looked into directly by this Court. 5 wp10559.10 8. As the bank has already recovered its amount, I do not find any useful purpose will be served by asking the petitioners to deposit any amount before filing revision under Section 154(2a) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. However, I can not conclude this aspect at this stage. With liberty to file appropriate revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar as per Section 154 and also with liberty to seek exemption from condition of pre-deposit and these observations, the present Writ Petitions are disposed of with no order as to costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp10559.10