Non-compliance with auction rules and procedures can lead to the cancellation of a sale certificate. The additional jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act does not exclude the remedies available under the Cooperative Societies Act.

1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order of the second respondent, i.e., Regional Deputy Registrar (Housing), dated 18.10.2007 and confirmed by the order of the first respondent, dated 31.1.2008.

2. The writ petition was admitted on 28.2.2008. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted after observing that the petitioner was in possession and though the sale certificate was issued as early as 1993, it was sought to be cancelled only in the year 2007. Further, it was recorded that the petitioner will not part with his title and interest in the property pending disposal of the writ petition. The interim stay granted for four weeks was extended until further orders by a further order dated 19.12.2008.

3. On notice from this court, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated Nil (April, 2008). The fifth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, dated Nil (April, 2008).

4. It was the stand of the fifth respondent that the landed properties originally belonged to one Muthusamy. The fifth respondent had purchased the same for a valuable consideration. He had obtained housing loan from the third and fourth respondents in Loan No.19/84. The loan was sanctioned in the year 1980. A sum of Rs.3877/- was paid upto 1984. But due to unavoidable circumstances, further amounts could not be paid. Because of the non payment, the third and fourth respondents had brought the house for sale in an auction on 23.05.1985. The writ petitioner became the successful bidder in the auction. He had purchased the property for the value of Rs.36,025/- and paid Rs.5000/- immediately after auction towards the sale consideration. The balance amount was paid in 11 installments. The last installment was paid on 17.11.1990. It was only after the issuance of no objection certificate on 26.11.1991, the fifth respondent came to know that auction rules and procedures were not followed. Under Rule 67(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 15% of the amount should have been paid at the time of auction and the balance amount should be paid within 15 days from the date of the auction. Whereas the petitioner was given time upto 5 years to pay the amount in installments contrary to rules. Therefore, the fifth respondent had issued a legal notice on 10.11.1990 and had raised an objection regarding the sale made in favour of the petitioner and asked for re-auction. It was only after the legal notice was issued, the last installment was paid by the writ petitioner. He has got no right to claim the sale certificate.

5. It was stated that initially, the house was occupied by the writ petitioner as a tenant. Taking advantage of the occupation, the petitioner had attempted to get the confirmation certificate by way of filing O.P.No.4/1992 before the District Consumer Redressal Forum without making the fifth respondent as a party. The District Forum had issued a direction to the society to grant the sale certificate in favour of the writ petitioner. The fifth respondent had preferred an appeal before the State Commission being A.P.No.97 of 1993. It was held that the auction was not held in terms of the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act. It had directed the respondents to re-pay the installments with interest and that the initial amount of Rs.5000/- was to be forfeited to the Government. The writ petitioner had preferred a revision before the National Commission being Revision Petition No.459 of 1993. The National Commission also confirmed the order of the State Commission. The petitioner being in possession of the property as a tenant, filed a civil suit in O.S.No.749 of 1993 and O.S.No.1441 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli. Both suits were dismissed for default. It is under these circumstances after sending legal notice dated 9.3.2007 for recovery of possession, he had made a complaint to the Deputy Registrar on 18.10.2007. The Deputy Registrar by