A.J. DESAI, J.

1 This intra-court appeal is arising from the Order dated 8.9.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.6360 of 2010 by which the petition filed by the present appellant challenging the action of the respondent No.2–Bank of selling the properties in auction without following the procedure prescribed under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” for short) was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2 Brief facts arising from the record of the case are as under:

2.1 That the respondent No.2 i.e. Panchmahal District Central Cooperative Bank Limited which is a cooperative bank, registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act” for short) and it is a district level financial institution. The appellant–petitioner is also a society registered under the said Act and is functioning for the member primary societies/farmer members thereof. The object of the society is to provide fertilizer and aid to the farmers for agricultural purposes.

2.2 That Respondent No.2 Bank had provided Letter of Credit of Rs. 3 lacs for fertilizer loan and Rs. 2 lacs for the stock. The society could not be able to repay the amount and, therefore, the respondent No.2 Bank filed a Lavad Suit (Arbitration Case No.614 of 2003) before the learned Board of Nominees, Godhra, under the provisions of the said Act. The Board of Nominees, by its Award dated 16.8.2005 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent No.2 Bank. Pursuant to the decree, an advertisement was published at the instance of the respondent No.2 Bank inviting offers for three different properties including the property of the present appellant which were to be put for auction due to the decree passed against the judgment debtor and due to recovery proceedings undertaken by the Recovery Officer. Having came to know about this advertisement, the Administrator of the appellant immediately filed an application, being Revision Application No.184 of 2008, before the Agricultural and Cooperation Department, Gandhinagar, challenging the advertisement on the ground that the respondent No.2–Bank while issuing the public advertisement has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Rules. The Revision came to be dismissed on 5.1.2009 observing that the property was already transferred to the person who has offered the highest price of the disputed property. In the present case, the purchasers of the said property are joined as respondents No. 3 to 7. While disposing of the Revision Application, the Appellate Authority observed that the revisionist has not challenged the judgment and award rendered by the Board of Nominees before the Cooperative Tribunal by filing an appeal as provided under the Act. In view of this observation made by the appellate authority, the appellant-petitioner thought it fit to file an appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal and, therefore, he submitted an appeal challenging the decision rendered by the Board of Nominees along with an application for condonation of delay as the appeal was time barred. The Cooperative Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay being Misc. Application No.24 of 2009 and, therefore, the present appellant challenged the said decision by way of filing a writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.7360 of 2009, before this Court. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 4.12.2009 allowed the said writ petition and quashed the order of the Tribunal rejecting the delay condonation application in preferring the appeal and condoned the delay and further directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits.

2.3 The learned Single Judge while disposing of the Special Civil Application No. 7360 of 2009, had an occasion to deal with the contention raised by the petitioner about the price of the properties fetched in the auction proceedings but did not decide the issue and observed that the said dispu