IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9751 OF 2022 Vikas Ratnakar Deobhankar Age: 55 years, Occ.: Business, R/o: House No.1485, Galli No.2, Navagrahi, Dhule, Dist. Nandurbar ..Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Co-operation, Marketing and Textiles, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. The Commissioner for Co-operation and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 2nd Floor, New Central Building, Ambedkar Wellesly Road, Pune-411 001.

3. The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dhule, Dist. Dhule.

4. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dhule, Dist. Dhule.

5. The Special Recovery Officer, Dhule District Co-operative Credit, Banks, Dist. Co-operative Federation Ltd.

Dhule, Dist. Dhule.

6. Shree Samarth Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Dhule, Dist. Dhule (Under Liquidation)

Through its Liquidator, Head Office-1199, Shree Samarth Bhavan, Nagarpatti, Dhule, Taluka & Dist. Dhule.

7. Prakash Ratnakar Deobhankar, Age: 57 years, Occ: Business. 8. Nita Prakash Deobhankar, Age: 53 years, Occu: Household.

9. Smita Ratnakar Deobhankar, Age: 47 years, Occ: Household. 10. 7 to 9 R/o: House No.1485, Galli No.2, Navagrahi, Dhule, Dist. Dhule. ..Respondents …

Mr. Amit S. Savale, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. A. B. Chate, AGP for Respondents-State.

Mr. Pramod S. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

…

CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J.

DATED : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2022.

JUDGMENT (Per: S. G. Dige, J.):-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

2. The challenge in this petition is legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Dhule fixing erroneous upset price of the writ property of the petitioner under Rule 107(11) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) without giving an opportunity of being heard to the present petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

In the year 2005, the brother of the petitioner obtained loan from respondent no.5- Cooperative Bank. The present petitioner stood as guarantor. The brother of the petitioner failed to repay the loan. Hence, recovery certificate was issued against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.8,10,643/-.

The Chief Executive Officer of respondent no.5-Bank made a proposal dated 02.02.2017 to the District Deputy Registrar for fixing upset price of the writ property i.e. Plot No.41 out of survey no.3/1A+1B i.e. CTS No.1485/2 admeasuring 30.06 sq.mtr situated at Dhule-2, District Dhule, which was fixed at Rs.84,76,000/-. The respondent no.5 Bank went into liquidation.

On 16.09.2018 another notice of auction was published in local newspaper according to which the upset price of writ property of the petitioner was again fixed at Rs.84,76,000/-.

On 11.12.2020 another valuation report came to be prepared by the another valuer of the same writ property. The Special Recovery Officer of respondent no.6-Bank approached respondent no.3 again with the proposal for the fixation of upset price of the property of the petitioner at Rs.41,39,000/-.

On 16.03.2021, respondent no.3 issued a notice calling upon the present petitioner and others to remain present for hearing for the purposes of fixation of the upset price.

On 26.03.2021, the petitioner caused his appearance through his Advocate. The Advocate for the petitioner asked for the copy of the valuation report and the same was given to the Advocate of the petitioner. Thereafter, matter was fixed on

15.04.2021.

On 12.10.2021, the Advocate for the present petitioner had gone out of station. The respondent no.3 directed the present petitioner and other co-borrowers to place documents with respect to the upset price up till 20.10.2021 till 4 p.m. and the matter was closed for order. Thereafter, respondent no.3 did not pass any order for another 8 months and thereafter, the impugned order is passed fixing upset price at Rs.4