1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the auction notice dated 25.11.2004 (Annexure 15) and is seeking direction against the respondents for restraining them from auctioning the property of the petitioner mentioned in the auction notice dated 25.11.2004 and further the respondents may be restrained from taking any other action till the matter is finally decided by the RBI.

3. At the time of admission of the writ petition, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was willing to pay the loan amount but when the petitioner found that the respondents are demanding the amount which is not due in the petitioner and has wrongly calculated the interest and have not given credit of deposited amount, the petitioner raised objection, upon which, the respondents vide letter dated 28.4.2003 (Annexure 5) admitted that the respondent bank wrongly levied the interest of Rs.3,29,482/-and now they have corrected their account. It was also submitted that the petitioner submitted an application before the Banking Lokpal where the petitioner's application is still pending for consideration. It was also submitted by the petitioner's application is still pending for consideration. It was also submitted by the petitioner that even the bank subsequently admitted that amount of Rs.15 lakhs are required to be given credit in the account of the petitioner but they came out with a new case that the bank is having due of more than Rs.12 lakhs in the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted that even during the pendency of the matter by the competent authority, the respondents all of sudden issued a notice for auction on 25.11.2004 against the petitioner.

4. This Court after observing that the above are the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, stayed the operation of the auction notice dated 25.11.2004.

5. The respondents have submitted reply to the writ petition and an application u/Art. 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the stay order and for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. The respondents have raised preliminary objections namely, that Madhav Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. for whose loan recovery, the auction notice dated 25.11.2004 was issued, has not been impleaded as party and the petitioner impleaded the officers of Madhav Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. only, therefore, no writ can be issued against Madhav Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. or against the interest of Madhav Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. The respondents further submit that the writ petition against Madhav Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd is not maintainable in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Niyamat Ali v. Sirohi District Commercial Co-operative Bank Limited & Anr., reported in WLR 1993 (Raj.) 896.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the auction notice has been issued after following the process of law as provided in the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act of 1965'). A notice u/S. 117 of the Act of 1965 was issued to the petitioner in the year 2000, copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure R-1. The petitioner did not raise any objection and even did not appear to oppose the proceedings, therefore, a decree was passed on 19.10.2000 for Rs.42,80,052/- and interest thereon, copy of decree is placed on record as Annexure R-2. This fact has been suppressed by the petitioner and the petitioner has not challenged the proceedings and the decree in the writ petition, therefore, on this ground alone for suppression of important material fact and not challenging the decree dated 19.10.2000, the petitioner cannot challenge the auction notice dated 25.11.2004.

8. According to learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner submitted wrong facts before this Court and wrongly projected that all of a sudden, auction notice has been issued and the complaint of the petitioner is pending before RBI or before the Banking Lokpal. It is submitted that