V. Gopala Gowda, J.,

JUDGMENT

This writ appeal is filed by the purchaser questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 23536 of 2005, dated 12-1-2006 in quashing the order of confirmation of sale of the property in question and sale certificate dated 11-8-2005 issued in favour of appellant, urging various grounds.

2. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the first respondent herein has not availed alternative remedy provided to him under Section 106 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (in short, 'the Act') as the order that would be passed under Section 101-A of the Act is an order passed under Section 101 of the Act, an appeal under Section 106 of the Act is provided i.e., to other authority is maintainable. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not have exercised his extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the impugned order of confirmation of sale and certificate of sale. The learned Senior Counsel in support of the above legal contention has relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in ILR 1999 Kar. 1425 (sic). Hence, he had urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

3. The second ground of attack of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is that the finding recorded by him in the impugned order at para 7 without specifying as to which provision of the Act and the Rules are violated by respondents 2, 3 and 5 in not conducting the sale of the property of respondent 1 in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, that by itself does not amount in violation of the statutory provision of Rule 38 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 to quash the confirmation order and the sale certificate issued by the second respondent in favour of the appellant.

4. The third ground urged by the learned Senior Counsel is that, the first respondent had not come forward to deposit the awarded amount with interest payable in favour of second respondent-Bank before either second respondent or respondent 3. Therefore, first respondent is not entitled for the reliefs as granted by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.

5. Rebutting the above said legal submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Keshav Bhat, learned Counsel for the first respondent had vehemently contended in justifying the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge inter alia contending that even assuming that an alternative remedy is provided under the provision of Section 106 of the Act for the first respondent, it is not a bar for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice in the case. The learned Single Judge after issuing notice to the parties giving opportunity to them and perusing the record of the second respondent-Registrar found that there is infraction of Rule 38 of the Rules in conducting the sale which has vitiated the sale therefore, he ought not have confirmed the sale and issued sale certificate in favour of the appellant. Therefore he submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of his jurisdiction need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of judicial review power in this appeal, as the appellant has not made out ground to interfere with the impugned order.

6. While justifying the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, the learned Counsel for the first respondent in respect of violation of Rule 38 of the Rules in conducting the sale and for not following mandatory provisions of the Rules by the Sale Officer, the learned Single Judge has referred to the order impugned therein placing strong reliance upon Rule 38(2)(a) to (d) which reads as follows.-

"Rule 38(2)(a) to (d).-x x x x x x

(a) The Sale Officer shall serve or cause to be served a copy of the demand notice issued under sub-rule (3) of Rule 34 upon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document