ORDER

Petitioner is seeking writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 28.12.2013 passed by respondent No.1 produced as per Annexure-‘J’ and to set aside the auction proceedings culminated in issuance of sale certificate dated 30.04.2014 as per Annexure-G. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.S.C.Hiremath, appearing for petitioner and Sri.Hanamanthraya Lagali, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri.Mrutyunjay S.

Hallikeri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had borrowed loan from respondent No.3-Bank by mortgaging his property bearing R.S.Nos.179/1A/2 and 179/1A/3, both measuring 31 guntas each. However, he could not repay the amount and an award came to be passed. The sale Officer initiated the proceedings for sale of the property. Annexure-C is one of the notice issued referring to R.S.Nos.179/1A/2 and 179/1A/3 referred to by the petitioner. However, subsequently Annexure-D was issued where there is reference to R.S.No.97 measuring 3 acres 14 guntas situated in Timmapura Village, Badami taluka. This property was never mortgaged by the petitioner. There was no charge created on it. Procedure as contemplated under Rule 38(2)(c) of the Karnataka Co-Operatives Societies Rules, 1960 (for short,’ the Rules’) are not followed and no notice was issued to the petitioner in that regard. Under such circumstances, the said property could not have been brought for sale.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the land in question was brought for sale, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.62351/2011 before this Court and deposited the entire amount that was due to the Bank. In spite of that Bank and the Sale Officer in collusion with respondent No.4, proceeded to confirm the sale and issued Sale Certificate. None of the provisions of law contained in the Rules were followed. Therefore, the Sale Certificate produced as per Annexure-G is to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner referred to above was came to be dismissed and an appeal is provided under Section 106 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, (for short, ‘the Act’). Accordingly, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, (for short, ‘the DRCS’). But he has not considered the contentions taken by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is again before this Court.

6. Learned counsel submits that when the Rule

38(2) of the Rules are not followed and when the entire amount was already deposited by the petitioner and when writ petition was very much pending before this Court, respondents in collusion of one another got auction sale and issued the Sale Certificate, which is bad under the law. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition in the interest of justice.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that respondent No.4 is the purchaser of the property in the auction sale. Admittedly, petitioner had borrowed the amount, an award was passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (for short, ‘the ARCS’) and Recovery Order was also issued. The award and the Recovery Order were never challenged by the petitioner. The sale notice was issued as per Annexure-C on 20.05.2010. Even thereafter, the petitioner has not bothered to make any payments. On 07.09.2010 the notice as required under Section 38(2)(c) of the Rules was issued. About 3 months thereafter, one more notice as per Annexure-D was also issued including R.S.No.97 measuring 3 acres 14 guntas. None of these notices were challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, the Recovery Officer has proceeded to hold the auction of the property. Respondent No.4 was the highest bidder. Even though the Writ Petition No.62351/2011 was filed, there was no order staying the furth