A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. Rule in Writ Petition No. 1137/2004 and Writ Petition No. 1138/2004. Rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the concerned Respondents waive service.

2. By consent of Counsel for the respective parties, matter is taken up for final disposal, forthwith.

3. We propose to dispose of all the three Writ Petitions by this common judgment. For, the issues raised in these Writ Petitions are over lapping.

4. The first set of Writ Petitions (WP/1137/2004 and WP/1138/2004) filed by the Petitioner Bank is for revocation of permission granted by Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority (for short “PCNTDA”) in favour of Prakash Shivajirao Shendge (Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 1137/2004, hereinafter referred to as “Prakash Shendge”) and Vilas Dhondiram Shendge (Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 1138/2004, hereinafter referred to as “Vilas Shendge”) to develop Plot No. 12 and Plot No. 13 respectively, and to pass an order against PCNTDA to permit the Recovery Officer of the Bank to sell the said plots, as a follow up measure, pursuant to the attachment of the said plots by the Recovery Officer, in connection with Recovery Certificates issued against the said persons, on 13th September, 2002 and 25th September, 2002 respectively, under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “Said Act”). The second set of Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 1021/2011, is also filed by the Petitioner Bank for quashing and setting aside order dated 24th December, 2010 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, in connection with shop Nos. 32 to 39 in Building “City Pride” constructed upon the said plot Nos. 12 and 13, in spite of order of attachment of the said plots was subsisting. The said shop numbers 32 to 39 have been attached by separate attachment order dated 17th February, 2010 and as a follow up measure to the said attachment, the Recovery Officer wanted to proceed with the auction sale of the said plots. That auction was challenged by the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (in Writ Petition No. 1021/2011). The said challenge has been upheld by the Divisional Joint Registrar in Revision Application, which decision is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 1021/2011.

5. We shall now advert to the relevant facts common to all these Petitions. On 8th February, 1996, deed of lease was executed by PCNTDA in favour of Prakash Shendge in respect of Plot No. 12 admeasuring 843.6 square meters and designated as “Sub District Center” meant for commercial development in Sector 25, village Akurdi, Taluka Haveli, District – Pune for a period of 99 years. The lease deed was registered with the Sub Registrar, Taluka – Haveli, District – Pune. Another lease deed was executed by PCNTDA in favour of Vilas Shendge on the same terms in respect of Plot No. 13, admeasuring 882.5 square meters, designated as “Sub District Center” meant for commercial development in the same area. Even this lease deed is registered with the Sub Registrar, Taluka – Haveli, Dist, Pune. 6. One M/s. Shivalik Transport Company, Respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 1138/2004 and Respondent No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 1021/2011 (hereinafter referred to as “Shivalik”), secured loan from the Petitioner Bank for a sum of Rs. 65 lakhs. The said Shivalik is a registered partnership firm consisting of partners Gopal K. Agarwal and Shankar Bapu Dudhal. At the relevant time, they were members of the Petitioner Bank. The proximity of these two persons with Shendge family is evident from the fact that Suresh Shendge and Shri. Vilas Shendge (leaseholder of plot No.13) stood guarantors for the said loan transaction.

7. The Bank also provided loan to Accrate Exim Private Limited, Respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 1137/2004 and Respondent No. 7 in Writ Petition No. 1021/2011 (hereinafter referred to as “Accrate”), in the sum of Rs. 5 crores. The said Accrate is a registered Private Limited Company. T