The petitioner, who obtained a loan from the 1st respondent Bank, has approached this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P1 and P2 notices dated 01.11.2017 and 25.01.2018 respectively, and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant four months' time to sell a part of the mortgaged property for discharging the amount due to the 1st respondent Bank and also an order directing the 3rd respondent Sale Officer not to continue with the proceedings to sell the property till then.

2. On 10.01.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission by special messenger to respondents 1 to 3, returnable on 17.01.2018. On that day, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Bank submitted that the total overdues as on that date comes to Rs. 5,90,000/-and that, if the petitioner is prepared to clear the said amount within one week, the 1st respondent Bank is prepared to regularise the loan account. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions as to whether a part of the mortgaged property can be sold for realising the loan amount outstanding and accordingly the matter was adjourned to 22.01.2018.

3. On 22.01.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Bank sought time to file statement. This Court has ordered that, confirmation of the sale scheduled to be held on 25.01.2018, in terms of Ext.P2 sale notice, shall be deferred for a period of 10 days. On 29.01.2018, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Bank that a statement is being filed on that day. The learned counsel submitted further that no sale was conducted on 25.01.2018 in terms of Ext.P2 sale notice. The said submission was recorded. In view of the said statement made by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Bank, the interim order dated 22.01.2018, whereby confirmation of the sale scheduled to be held on 25.01.2018 in terms of Ext.P2 sale notice was ordered to be deferred for a period of 10 days, was not extended further.

4. On 09.02.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sale was conducted on 01.02.2018 and in the absence of bidders, the 1st respondent Bank purchased the property for Rs. 18,04,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file reply affidavit to the statement filed by the 1st respondent Bank. By the order dated 09.02.2018, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Bank was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the entire files relating to the sale conducted on 01.02.2018.

5. On 16.02.2018, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent produced the file relating to the sale conducted by the respondent Sale Officer on 01.02.2018. By the order dated 16.02.2018, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to retain the original file handed over by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank under safe custody and the 3rd respondent Sale Officer was directed to file an affidavit explaining the procedure undertaken before conducting the sale on 01.02.2018.

6. On 22.02.2018, on perusing the file handed over by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent relating to the sale conducted on 01.12.2018, this Court found that the proceedings before the 3rd respondent were in violation of the procedure prescribed under Circular No.58/2013 dated 19.09.2013, Circular No.70/2013 dated 12.11.2013, etc. issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Subsequent to the said order, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit through the Special Government Pleader. Paragraphs 3, 4 and the last paragraph of the said counter affidavit read thus;

“3. It is submitted that the Thrissur Primary Co-operative Agricult