1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1511/2011 Sanjay Gandhi Kapus Utpadak Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd, Jalgaon(Jamod) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Textile, Mantralaya,Mumbai 32 and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr.S.V.Manohar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Khubalkar, AGP for R-1 to 3. Mr. M.V.Samarth, Advocate for R- 4 and 5. CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATE : 25.04.2011 Heard Mr. S.V.Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Khubalkar, learned AGP for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. M.V.Samarth, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instance case though there is a order dated 10.12.2002 passed by the Cooperative Court thereby it is declared that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 4,19,50,000/- @ 21% p.a. interest from the date of filing of dispute i.e. 20.9.2002 till realization of full amount with cost of Rs. 11,520/- to the disputant bank, the petition is directed against the auction notice dated 2` 9.3.2011 issued by respondent no.4 Bank in respect of the property of the petitioner Soot Girni mentioned therein. It is submitted that the property of the Soot Girni has been mortgaged to the State Government vide deed of mortgage dated 8.8.2007. it is submitted that the mortgage deed placed on record by the respondent Bank dated 31st May, 2000 clearly demonstrates that only the residential quarters C and D types were mortgaged to the respondent no.4 Bank and not the entire property of the Soot Girni, which is already mortgaged with the State Government vide mortgage deed dated 8.8.2007. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned auction notice issued by the respondent no.4 Bank in respect of the property which was not mortgaged with the respondent no.4 Bank is bad in law. 3. Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner alternatively has submitted that the decree passed by the Cooperative Court is not the subject matter of challenge before any Court. However, unless Bank follows the procedures stipulated in sub Rule 10 of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and Rules 1961 the Bank is not entitled to straightway issue auction notice before taking appropriate steps contemplated under sub rule 10 of Rule 107 of the said Rules. 4. The learned AGP has also submitted that the 3` notice of auction issued by the Bank is bad in law since the property in respect of which the notice of auction has been issued by the Bank has already been mortgaged to the State vide mortgage-deed dated 8.8.2007. 5. Mr. Samarth, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 Bank has submitted that the respondent no.4 Bank shall take appropriate steps as contemplated under sub rule 10 of Rule 107 of the said Rules and any other Rules which are applicable in this regard before proceedings with the auction of the property. 6. On the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the decree passed by the Cooperative Court is not the subject matter of challenge anywhere and, therefore, we do not see any impediment in implementation of the said decree passed by the Cooperative Court by the respondent no.4 Bank is concerned. However, the respondent no.4 Bank has already made a statement that appropriate steps while implementing the decree passed by the Cooperative Court as contemplated under the said Act of 1960 and Rules of 1961 shall be taken. Hence, there is no reason for us to issue any direction in this regard. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition does 4` not survives. It is open for the State Government to take steps in accordance with law, if necessary. The petitioner is dismissed accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE patle