The distinction between the roles of the sale officer and the registrar of the district under the Co-Operative Societies Act and the A. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, and the requirement that these roles be performed by different persons.

( 1 ) ON 10-8-79, the residential house belonging to the petitioner and situate in the gudur town, nellore district was put to public auction by the 2nd respondent the taluk co-operative officer (registrar of the district ). The bid was knocked down in favour of the 4th respondent the highest bidder for Rs. 30,000/ -. The auction sale was held in execution of a decree obtained on 13-6-1961 against the petitioner by the 3rd respondent the gudur cooperative house building society limited. The petitioner, as a member of the 3rd respondent-society borrowed a sum of Rs. 12,000/- in 1956 for constructing the residential house in question. As he failed to repay the loan amount, proceedings were initiated by the 3rd respondent under Section 61 of the Co-Operative Societies Act and after the matter was referred to arbitrator under Section 62, a decree was passed for Rs. 12,938. 39 by the arbitrator against the petitioner. The 3rd respondent-society initiated execution proceedings by filing a petition in that behalf on 18-6-70 for Rs. 16,228. 60. The house was put to auction on 16-3-76 but as the highest bid amount was only Rs. 22,000/- unduly low the bid was rejected. At the second auction held on 10-8-79, the sale was knocked down in favour of the 4th respondent for Rs. 30,000/ -. An objection petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 70 of the act read with Rule 52 (14), contending that the sale was vitiated due to certain material irregularities, viz. , the value of the bouse being about Rs. 80,000/- price of rs, 30,000/- fetched at the auction was unduly low and that due publicity as required under the Rules was not given. The objection petition was rejected on 11-9-79 and the sale was confirmed. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent the deputy registrar of co-operative societies under Section 77 of the act. Apart from reiterating the very same contentions, one other contention advanced by the petitioner in the levision petition was that the second respondent had no jurisdiction to function both as a registrar of the district and the sale officer. The petitioner produced two certificates, one issued by the licensed building surveyor to the effect that the value of the house is Rs. 98,000/- and the other issued by the village munsif estimating the value at Rs. 70,000/ -. Observing that the valuation certificates produced by the petitioner, after the sale was over contained exaggerated and inflated figures and there was no material irregularity in the conduct of sale, the deputy registrar dismissed the application. Impugning the auction sales, the present writ petition was filed on 28-11-1980 seeking writ of ccrtiorari to quash the order of the 1st respondent confirming the order of the 2nd respondent.

( 2 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred that the building has rcc roof and the plinth area was 1800 square feet and the total area was 4800 square feet. It is located in a posh residential area and its value according to the estimates prepared by the licensed building surveyor, guduru municipality was Rs. 98,000/- and according to the certificate issued by the village munsif, Rs. 70,000/ -. The market value of the building estimated by the building surveyor was based on the market value of the propety fixed by the registration authority. The price of Rs. 30,000/- fetched was unduly low. The sale was vitiated due to material irregularities since the respondent 1 and 2 failed to take in account the proper value of the house. It is further averred that the 2nd respondent had acted without jurisdiction in conforming the sale, since that was a function to be exercised by the registrar of the district and not by the sale officer. The petitioner also filed w. P. M. P. No. 508 of 1980, seeking suspension of the operation of the order of the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition. On this w. P. M. P. , p. A. Choudary, j. Passed the f