1 W.P.No.7631 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7631 OF 2010 Omprakash Babulal Agrawal, Age 62 years, Occu.Business, R/o Shirpur, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Division Nashik, Nashik 2. The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dhule 3. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Shirpur, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule 4. Sale and Special Recovery Officer, Shirpur Merchant Co-operative Bank Ltd., Shirpur, Taluka Shirpur, Dist.Dhule 5. The Shirpur Merchant Bank Ltd., Shirpur, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule 6. Manoj Omprakash Agrawal, Age Major, Occu.Business, R/o Shirpur, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.B.Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr V.H.Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr D.S.Bagul, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 9th November, 2011 2 W.P.No.7631 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. The writ petitioner has challenged the auction notice issued by respondent-Bank in terms of Rule 107 (5) (11) of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Rules 1960 and 1961. The revisional authority, the Divisional Joint Registrar, by the impugned order did not entertain the revision under Section 154 by order dated 3.6.2010. Hence, the same is questioned by the writ petitioner. 4. The principal contentions of writ petitioner are: (a) That he is not a borrower to the Bank. The loan was availed by his son. The property of his son could have been attached but not of the writ petitioner; (b) No reasons are assigned by the Divisional Joint Registrar. Only one line order of revision become infructuous is recorded; (c) After the notice, substantial payments are made by the borrower and consequently, the action contemplated by the Bank needs reconsideration. 3 W.P.No.7631 of 2010 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the remedy available to the writ petitioner under the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Rules i.e. Rule 107 (13) will take care of all the objections of the writ petitioner. He has placed reliance to the judgment of this Court dated 26.10.2010 in Writ Petition No.4290 of 2009 (Smt.Taramati w/o Balkrushna Kale Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors.). 6. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, to stress his point has placed reliance to the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Maya Devi (dead) through L.Rs. vs. Raj Kumari Batra (dead) through L.Rs. and ors., reported in 2011 (1) Mh.L.J. 683 to inform that the orders of the statutory authority should be reasoned. 7. There cannot be a quarrel of the legal position as enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Maya Devi (supra). The factual matrix in the present case and in particular, the order dated 3.6.2010 informs that it is a reasoned order. It is by no stretch can be said to be a one line order, as the judgment proceeds in seven pages and the operative part is around ten to twelve lines. 8. The Divisional Joint Registrar, while negating contentions of the writ petitioner has assigned reasons, one of them is that the writ petitioner claimed that the property is self-acquired. However, it is of his father, received by virtue of a Will, while the borrower is his son. It 4 W.P.No.7631 of 2010 is also pointed out and not disputed that the other relations viz. Rajendra Jagdish Agrawal, Ashok Babulal Agrawal, Ankush Ashok Agrawal, all close relations of the writ petitioner have also borrowed amounts from the same Bank and they are also in arrears. 9. During the course of submissions, it is informed that other borrowers had so far wiped out their liabilities and the son Manoj has also released some payments, after issuance of notice. The learned Counsel for the Bank, on instructions informs that after issuance of notice dated 2.9.2009 around Rs.11 lacs are paid by said Manoj, son of the writ petitioner, to liquidate the liability. Then Notice shows balance of Rs.22,28,969/-. However, according to him, the present liability has further amounted due to further interest. 10. It is also pointed and not disputed that the writ petitioner was the Director of the Bank. It may be that he was not a member of loan disbursement committee or on record did not venture to favour kin and kith to receive the loan but fact remains that the loan borrowed by the six borrowers mentioned in the notice are in close relations. 11. The effect of notice dated 2.9.2009 indeed has been deflated as the schedule date of auction, no more remained in subsistence.The subsequent payments by the borrower also needs to be considered. Learned Counsel submits that the auction is ab initio void. The same can be agitated before the competent authority by raising objection by 5 W.P.No.7631 of 2010 way of filing petition under Section 107 (13) of the Act. That too, if Bank takes fresh action. 12. Considering the above aspects, since the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar is a reasoned order, passed in the revision application, I do not see any reason to interfere in the same. Writ Petition lacs merit. Hence dismissed. Rule discharged. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (vvr/7631.10wp)