JUDGMENT :

Anil S. Kilor, J.

The Liquidator of Parbhani People's Cooperative Bank Ltd., Parbhani ('the Bank' for short), auctioned a plot admeasuring 2832.37 sq. mtr. along with a multi storey building standing on it, owned by the Bank. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are calling in question the legality and propriety of the said auction, mainly on the grounds that the auction conditions were changed in the midst of the auction process, proper procedure was not adhered to, upset price fixed was highly inadequate, a fraud was committed in conduct of auction and there was collusion between the auction purchaser and auctioning authorities. Hence all these petitions are heard together and decided finally with the consent of the parties.

2. Brief facts which would be necessary to deal with the issues involved in the present matter are stated hence forward. The Respondent Parbhani People's Cooperative Bank Ltd. is a Cooperative Bank registered under the Provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies, Act, 1960. As a result of alleged mismanagement and financial irregularities, the said bank went into liquidation in the year 2007. The property in question is a plot admeasuring 2832.37 sq. mtr along with multi-storey building standing on, which was put to auction by the Liquidator. The upset price was fixed to the tune of Rs.10,64,97,000/- and it was approved by the Commissioner, was based on valuation reports of two Government approved valuers and likewise due consideration was given to market value as per Government ready reckoner, was given.

3. The respondent Liquidator, on 03.05.2019, published E-Tender notice in two leading State level widely circulated newspapers and also published it on the webpage created by E-tendering agency.

4. The auction in question, was held on 28.05.2019. In all five bidders had participated in the said auction including the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7784/2019. Offer of Rs.12.06 crores of the respondent- highest bidder Kailash Balaprasadji Ajmera, was accepted by respondent authorities after negotiation. The highest bidder accordingly deposited the auctioned price of the property in question with the Liquidator. Albeit the offer of the petitioner in Writ petition No.7784/2019, was Rs.11,21,21,111/-.

5. This court, vide order dated 27th June, 2019, permitted the respondents authorities including liquidator to carry out further process, however, directed not to issue final allotment order and may not be parted with the property.

6. Shri Salunke, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7784/2019, submits that the respondent authorities ought to have held negotiations with all the bidders, but it was exclusively held with the highest bidder, thereupon though he was agreed to pay higher price to the tune Rs.13.17 crores, said offer did not accept.

7. Shri Salunke, further submits that subsequent to publication of the tender notice on 03.05.2019, the terms and conditions of auction were modified and even the place of auction was changed on three occasions.

8. The learned counsel Shri Salunke, points out that it was mandatory that the auction shall be held in the presence of Joint Register, Cooperative Societies, however, the Joint Registrar was not present when the auction was held. Thus, according to him, the authorities did not follow the procedure prescribed as per law and as such the whole auction vitiates.

9. Shri Bramhe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in wrt petition No. 9064/2019, supplementary to the contentions of the petitioner in writ petition No.7784/2019, argues that the petitioners are the shareholders of the respondent Bank and the property in question was put to auction behind their back. He submits that the upset price is highly inadequate if compared with the market value prevalent on the date of auction.

10. Shri Bramhe, argues that the property auctioned for Rs.12.06 crores, could have fetched not less than Rs.25 crores. He alleges that the