(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1405 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1434 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 1405 OF 2011 M/s. Puran Automobiles, Shahagunj, Aurangabad, through its Partner, Shri Murlidhar s/o. Khimandas Rizwani, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. A-5, Shantganga Housing Society, Dashmesh Nagar, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Cooperation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune. (2) 4. Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., Pune, Branch at Aurangabad, Through its Manager. 5. The Special Recovery Officer, Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., Pune, Janta Bank Building, New Gulmandi Road, Dalalwadi, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 and 5. ........................ WRIT PETITION NO. 1434 OF 2011 M/s. Puran Automobiles, Shahagunj, Aurangabad, through its Partner, Shri Murlidhar s/o. Khimandas Rizwani, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. A-5, Shantganga Housing Society, Dashmesh Nagar, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus (3) 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Cooperation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Commissioner of Cooperation/ Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune. 5. Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., Pune, Branch at Aurangabad, Through its Manager. 6. The Special Recovery Officer, Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., Pune, Janta Bank Building, New Gulmandi Road, Dalalwadi, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate, for respondent nos.5 and 6. ........................ (4) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. D.R. Korde, for respondent nos.1 to 3 / State, and Adv. Mr. S.V. Natu, for respondent nos.5 and 6 / Bank. 2. In earlier revision filed before Divisional Joint Registrar, while passing interim orders, to support its grant, the Divisional Joint Registrar gave a reason that order giving sanction to upset price and passed on 9-8-2010 was without hearing the concerned defaulter. In final order passed on 7-12-2010 in the very same matter, the Divisional Joint Registrar has in one line observed that the said order dated 9-8-2010 is in accordance with procedure. Necessary reasons for taking this divergent view are not recorded. 3. However, on 7-12-2010, the Divisional Joint Registrar directed Special Recovery Officer to hold re-auction as per Rule 107 of the Rules framed under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Notice of re-auction was published on 9-12-2010 and that was then questioned again by (5) the present petitioner. 4. In this background, Adv. Mr. Nagargoje, for the petitioner, contends that after 7-12-2010, when fresh auction was directed to be conducted, a fresh determination of upset price was essential. Further according to him, in any case, opportunity of hearing should have been extended to the petitioner if same upset price was to be acted upon. 5. Learned AGP Mr. Korde, for the respondent / State, and Adv. Mr. Natu, for the respondent / Bank, have supported the impugned order. They have pointed out that the statute does not contemplate any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while determining upset price. They also urged that the earlier order passed on 16-9-2010 was an interim order and that interim order has ultimately merged in final order dated 7-12-2010. Hence, observations made in the interim order are not decisive. 6. Adv. Mr. Natu contends that if there is any error in the judgment dated 7-12-2010, the petitioner has not challenged that judgment even in the present petition. 7. Adv. Mr. Nagargoje states that according to his instructions, present market value of the property is Rs. One (6) Crore per acre. Adv. Natu wants to show this Court, some documents which according to him, show that the adjacent land has been sold only for Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre. The upset price worked out here is Rs. 95,00,000/- for 4 Acres. Thus, amount of Rs. 23,75,000/- per acre has been determined as upset price. 8. The situation itself shows that the authority earlier while passing order on 16-9-2010 was justified in noting that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing before deciding upset price. That reason has not been considered or found to be incorrect by the very same authority while delivering final order. The final order contemplates re- auction and within two days thereafter public notice for re- auction has been issued. The question, whether fresh auction necessitated fresh determination of upset price, is a moot question. 9. Here, auction is scheduled on 14th March 2011. Hence, interest of justice can be taken care of by directing the respondent no.3 / District Deputy Registrar to extend opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the matter of determination of upset price and pass appropriate orders in relation thereto at the earliest. The petitioner is directed to appear before the said authority on 1st March 2011 and the said (7) authority after hearing him, pass appropriate orders in this respect by 4th March 2011. 10. With these directions, the petitions are disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1405etc