The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of approaching the court within a reasonable time and the relevance of delay and laches in exercising equitable jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

2. This petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs -

'a. Call record and proceedings of case.

B. By issuing the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature quash and set aside the Recovery Certificate no. 1678/06 dated 05.10.2006 issued by the respondent No. 2 u/s. 101 of M.C.S. act against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs.21,56,372/- and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

C. By issuing the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature quash and set aside the communication dated 09.03.2015 issued by the respondent no.3 confirming auction sale dated 05.02.2015 along with sale certificate dated 11.03.2015 and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

D. Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, grant stay to the effect and implementation of the Recovery Certificate no. 1678/06 dated 05.10.2006 issued by the respondent No. 2 u/s. 101 of the M.C.S. act and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

E. Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, grant stay to the effect and implementation of the sale certificate dated 11.03.2015 and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

F. ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'D' and 'E' may kindly be granted.

G. any other relief which deems fit may please be granted in favour of the petitioners.'

. Facts in brief, shorne of unnecessary details, are as follows -

3. In 2004, the petitioner applied for loan of Rs.15,50,000/-to respondent No. 4 credit co-operative society and offered to mortgage his agricultural land towards the security. The petitioner signed the loan application form and other documents and applied for the loan. However, the petitioner was orally told that his loan application is rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner shifted to Pune. In the month of November, 2017, the petitioner came to know that his property, mortgaged for the alleged loan, is sold by respondent No. 4 society, in auction proceedings. The petitioner applied for certified copy of recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Socieites act (hereinafter for short 'the said act') along with other documents, under the Right to Information act, by application dated 4th February, 2017. Pursuant to the said application, the petitioner received documents i.e. loan application, loan account extract, application seeking recovery certificate, notice dated 15th September, 2006, Roznama, acknowledgment of notice issued by respondent No. 4 society and the recovery certificate.

4. The main ground of challenge by the petitioner is that neither any notice was given to the petitioner nor he was heard before issuing the impugned recovery certificate and the impugned recovery certificate is issued without passing a reasoned order. The certificate should be in Form B of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short 'the said Rules'). according to him, the proceedings filed before respondent No. 2 seeking recovery certificate were not maintainable. He further assailed the auction sale on the ground that the same was conducted in violation of rule 107 of the said Rules. No demand notice was served on the petitioner. The sale proclamation, which is required to be issued in thirty days, was issued in fifteen days. The petitioner, therefore, challenges the recovery certificate dated 5th October, 2006 as well as the auction sale dated 5th February, 2015, by filing the present writ petition.

5. Heard Mr. abhijit Darandale, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, learned assistant Government Pleader for respondents No.1 to 3, Mr. Sandeep Munde holding for Mr. R. R. Karpe, learned advocate for respondents No.4 and 5 and Mrs. Manjusha Jagtap, learne