(1) wp4515-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4515 OF 2010 Swapnil s/o Dnyaneshwar Farkande PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Khandare, Govt. Pleader for the respondent/State. .... CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 22ND MARCH, 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER M.T. JOSHI, J.) : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govt. Pleader. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following relief : (2) wp4515-10 "Issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the auction notice dated 12.5.2010 issued by the Liquidator, Kandhar Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Limited, Kandhar, District Nanded for auctioning the properties of the Sangh." The petitioner also seeks directions to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider the application made by the petitioner dated 4th May, 2010 and issue necessary permission under section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, "the MCS Act") to the petitioner to prosecute the legal remedies against the Liquidator. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that bids to sell the property Survey No. 10/2, two godowns and open space, owned by the liquidated Kandhar Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Limited (for short, "the Sangh"), were called by respondent No. 2 - the Liquidator, vide sealed tender, by issuing auction notice in a local newspaper on 10th August, (3) wp4515-10 2009. The Government approved valuer had valued the property at Rs. 16,83,514/-. In all seventeen tenderers, including the petitioner, had submitted their tenders. The tenders were duly opened on 18th August, 2009 at 1.00 p.m. in presence of all the tenderers. Alongwith the tender, as required, a demand draft of Rs. 2,00,000/- was also submitted by the respective tenderers. The petitioner has quoted highest rate of Rs. 26,00,011/- and the property i.e. Survey No. 10/2 was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner deposited amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, which was accepted. He was, however, asked to make total deposit of 25% of the amount vide letter dated 20th August, 2009. The petitioner was given time of only five days to make deposit of 25% of the quoted amount. When the petitioner approached the Liquidator to deposit the said amount, he states that the Liquidator told him that first the property would be entered in the name of the Liquidator and then only, the amount will be accepted. Petitioner's grievance is that, thereafter however, the amount was not accepted and on the contrary, fresh tender notices were issued on 10th March, 2010. In the (4) wp4515-10 circumstances, the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 14/2010 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Kandhar. In view of the interim relief granted in that Suit, the next of the process could not be continued by the Liquidator. The suit was, however, dismissed, in view of the bar under the provisions of section 107 of the MCS Act. The petitioner approached respondent No. 4 in accordance with the provisions of section 107 of the MCS Act. However, his representation dated 4th May, 2010 was not at all responded. In the meanwhile, the petitioner pursued the matter with the Liquidator vide his various communications. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 - the Liquidator had issued fresh auction notice on 12th May, 2010, which is sought to be set aside in the present writ petition. 4. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. the District Deputy Registrar and the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, in their affidavit-reply, have pointed out that the Liquidator has violated the provisions of section 105 (1) (c) of the MCS Act as the property could not have been auctioned by offers (5) wp4515-10 through sealed tenders but under a public auction. It was further pointed out that the petitioner has not deposited 25% of the amount, as per the condition. It was lastly submitted that respondent No. 3 has already protected the offer of the petitioner and the property shall not be sold below the offer price of the petitioner. They further emphasized that the public auction is required as is being carried. Respondents No. 3 and 4 urged for dismissal of the writ petition and for vacation of the interim relief granted by this Court on 18th May, 2010. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that the public auction was not held, but merely tenders were called. Thus, the process which was required to be undertaken as per law was not followed. The property was valued at Rs. 16,83,514/- solely as per the Ready Reckoner available with the Registrar of Documents. Considering these aspects of the matter, we do not see any substance in the petition. We, however, grant liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited by him in this Court. Hence, the order. (6) wp4515-10 O R D E R The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lacs) deposited by him in this Court, with interest thereon, if any. The petitioner is at liberty to keep his offer price open, as has been accepted by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is also open to the petitioner to improve his offer further, if he so desires, in writing in a sealed cover. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] NPJ/wp4515-10