1. The subject writ petitions are materially connected with respect to the illegality alleged by the petitioners in conducting the sale proceedings in order to recover the amount due to the Edamalayar Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.1178. Admittedly, petitioners are either loanees or guarantors, and repayment of amounts were defaulted violating the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by and between the parties. Consequent to which, bank proceeded after issuing demand notices, which finally culminated in sale notices. In W.P.(C) No.16508/2017, the sale notices are Exts.P1 to P6. In W.P.(C) No.16521/2017, the sale notices are Exts.P1 and P2. In both the writ petitions, petitioners are not disputing the amounts shown in the sale notices concerned. The legal contention raised in both the writ petitions is that, the stipulations contained under rule 81 (e) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called “the Rules”) is not complied with. Rule 81 of the Rules deals with procedure in attachment and sale of immovable properties. Clause (e) of Rule 81 read thus:

“81(e) :-Proclamation of sale shall be published by affixing a notice in the offices of the Registrar, the Tahsildar and of the society concerned, at least thirty days before the date fixed for the sale and also by the beat of Tomtom in the village on 2 consecutive days previous to the date of sale and on the date of sale prior to the commencement of the sale [if found necessary under unavoidable circumstances]. Such proclamation shall, where attachment is required before sale, be made after the attachment has been effected. Notice shall also be given to the decree-holder and the defaulter. It shall specify the date, time and place of sale and specify as fairly and accurately as possible (i) the property to be sold (ii) any encumbrance to which the property is liable (iii) the amount for the recovery of which sale is ordered; and (iv) every other matter which the sale officer considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and value of the property.”

2. Relying on the said provision, learned counsel for petitioners contended that as per the stipulation, 30 days notice is to be provided for conducting the sale. However, as per Ext.P1 notice dated 8.5.2017, 30 days is not provided and the sale is posted on 22.5.2017. It is also contended other mandatory requirements contained under clause (e) of rule 81, and rule 85 of the Rules 1969 are also violated. The question to be resolved is whether any such statutory requirements are violated.

3. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent society refuting the allegations, claims and demands raised by the petitioners. According to the respondents, substantial amounts are due from the petitioners and petitioners were able to flout the proceedings initiated by the society to recover the amount till this extent of time.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Senior Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent bank and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

5. In my considered opinion, on a proper analysis of clause (e), it is clearly discernible that, 30 days notice is stipulated for proclamation of sale by affixing a notice in the office of the Registrar, Tahsildar and of the society concerned at least 30 days before the date fixed for sale. Petitioners have produced before this court only the notices issued to the petitioners. Nowhere in the first limb of clause (e), it is provided that, a notice shall be provided to the petitioner with 30 clear days before conducting the sale. In my considered opinion, such a requirement is not contemplated under clause (e), because in the second limb, it is only stipulated that, notice shall also be given to the decree holder and the defaulter. Therefore, it is categoric and clear that notice of 30 days is mandated only for publication of the same by affixing in the offices of the Registrar, th