1. The short question that emanates for consideration is whether the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act') would apply to respondent No.1/Cooperative Bank constituted under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

2. The essential facts shorn of all paraphernalia requisite to answer the aforesaid question are as under:

(2.1) The Authorised Officer of Laxmi Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit enforced security interest under the provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and took symbolic possession of secured asset and thereafter with aid and assistance of the District Magistrate, Raipur, by its order dated 25-5-2009, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, took physical possession of secured asset on 3-9-2010 and auction sale was made on 13-9-2002 in favour of respondent No.7 and sale certificate was issued in favour of respondent No.7 – auction purchaser on the same day. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Magistrate and invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner claiming to be the co-owner along with respondents No.2 and 3, who had taken financial assistance from respondent No.1 Bank, has filed this writ petition primarily on the ground that the respondent No.1 Bank is a cooperative society engaged in the business of banking is not a banking company as defined in Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act of 1949') and therefore the provisions of the SARFAESI Act would not apply and the entire proceeding initiated by respondent No.1 is illegal and bad in law.

(2.2) The respondent No.1 Bank has filed its return stating inter alia that the entire proceeding under the SARFAESI Act had already been completed and as such, the auction sale has already been made and exercise is complete and even possession of secured asset has already been delivered to respondent No.7.

(2.3) Respondents No.2 and 3 have filed return supporting the petition and the stand taken by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(2.4) Respondent No.7 has opposed the writ petition stating inter alia that the action of the respondent Bank in exercising power under the SARFAESI Act and holding the auction sale and selling the property in favour of respondent No.7, is strictly in accordance with law, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

3. Mr. G.D. Vaswani, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the respondent No.1 Bank being a cooperative society engaged in the business of banking is not a banking company as defined in Section 5(c) of the Act of 1949, therefore, the SARFAESI Act will not be applicable to the property in question and as such, the respondent Bank was totally incompetent to proceed under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the disputed amount and therefore the physical possession taken and the auction sale made in favour of respondent No.7 deserve to be set aside. Mr. Vaswani would strongly rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and others [(2007) 6 SCC 236].

4. None has appeared for respondent No.1. No representation is made despite service of notice.

5. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, would support the petitioner.

6. Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7, would submit that notification under Section 2(1)(c)(v) of the SARFAESI Act has been issued by the Central Government on 28-1-2003 and by the said notification, Cooperative Banks have been included within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Act of 1949 and therefore respondent No.1 being a Cooperative Bank was empowered to proceed under the SARFAESI Act and rightly proceeded so and thus, the auction sale has rightly been made. Mr. Bhaduri relied upon the decision of t