The court established that adherence to statutory processes for property sale was observed, and petitioners failed to pursue available legal remedies, justifying dismissal.

1. Following are the prayers made in paragraph no.8 of thepetition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution:

(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issued writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing and setting aside all the actions taken by the Respondent Nos.1 &2 in pursuance to the property of the petitioner No.1 Company situated in village Uttarsanda bearing Block No.1583 in favour of the respondent no.3 and his associates and direct to restorethe possession of the property;

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent No.4 to hold the inquiry and submit the report regarding the action taken by the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in pursuance to the property belonging to the petitioner No.1 - Company situated in village Utttarsanda bearing Block No.1583;

(C) During the pendency admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondent Nos.1 and 2 from proceeding further in transferring or alienating the property of the petitioner No.1 - Company situated in Village Uttarsanda bearing Block No.1583 in favour of Respondent No.3 or any other person;

(D) xxxx xxxx xxxx

(E) xxxx xxxx xxxx

2. As per the case of the petitioners, petitioner no.1 - company started a resort in the name and style of 'Triumph Resort' with a restaurant in the name and style of 'Angithi' and applied for financial assistance to respondent no.1 - Vaso Co - operative Bank Limited (now known as 'Cooperative Bank of Rajkot Limited) for which it mortgaged its properties with the Bank for Rs.23,90,000/-. The respondent no.1 - Banks anctioned the loan of Rs.41,90,000/-, but disbursed loan of Rs.29,21,000/-. The respondent no.1 then filed Lavad Suit No.416 of 2000 before the Board of Nominee at Anand for recovery of the dues from the petitioners and the Board of Nominee in purported exercise power under S.96 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (' the Act') passed the award on 26.03.2001 for recovery of Rs.33,80,160/- with interest at the rate of 21% from 08.03.2000 from the petitioner no.1 and its sureties including petitioner no.2. Against such award, Appeal No.341 of 2001 before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal (' the Tribunal) came to be filed, which is pending. It is alleged in the petition that without issuing any notice to the petitioners, the office bearers of respondent no.1 highhandedly took away the possession of the properties of petitioner no.1. The respondent no.2 - Special Recovery Officer then disposed of the properties of petitioner no.1 in favour of respondent no.3 in arbitrary manner and by flouting all norms for auctioning the properties for recovery of the dues. It is stated in the petition that the properties, worth more than Rs.1 Crore, is sold at a throwaway price of Rs.17,80,000/- to respondent no.3 and the petitioners were not given any opportunity to pay the dues, though the petitioners had served the notice dated 16.12.2003 to the respondent no.1 stating that the petitioners were ready and willing to pay the entire amount.

3. The affidavit - in - reply is filed on behalf of respondent no.1 to oppose the petition.

4. This petition was earlier dismissed vide judgment dated 30.09.2011 on the ground that the alternative remedy of the appeal under S.203 of the Bombay (now Gujarat)Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code) was available to the petitioners and, therefore, the petition was not required to be entertained. However, such judgment was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 08.10.