The court underscores the need for proper notification and fair procedure in co-operative society property sales.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner availed credit facilities from the

1^st respondent bank. On default being committed, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969, and an award was obtained determining the amounts payable by the petitioner. In proceedings for execution of the award, the property of the petitioner was brought to sale, and it was sold in a public auction on 11-06-2025 and was purchased by the 3^rd respondent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the property of the petitioner has been sold much below the market value. It is submitted that the property worth more than Rs. 1 Crore has been sold for a sum of Rs.35.85 lakhs. It is submitted that the sale was originally notified on 07-06-2025. It is submitted that since 07-06-2025 was declared as a public holiday by the Government, the sale was adjourned to 11-06-2025. It is submitted that there was no proper notification of the adjournment of sale. It is submitted that there are several other irregularities in the conduct of the sale by the sale officer. It is submitted that the petitioner has therefore filed Ext.P8 petition under Rule 83 of the Kerala Co-operative Rules, 1969, seeking to set aside the sale. It is submitted that Ext.P8 is pending consideration of the 4^th respondent. It is also submitted that the 3^rd respondent did not remit the amount for which he had purchased the property in auction within the time specified, and it is clear from the counter affidavit filed in this Court that the amount was paid by way of adjustment from another account. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is ready to clear the entire liability in instalments.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the

1^st respondent bank and the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent would submit that there is no irregularity in the sale. It is submitted that the petitioner was given every opportunity to settle the liability, and on the failure of the petitioner to do so, the bank has been faced with no other option but to bring the property of the petitioner to sale. It is submitted that after the sale has been conducted and third party rights have been created, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to now contend that the petitioner may be permitted to clear the liability in instalments.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P8 can be considered by the 4^th respondent or by an officer exercising the powers of the Registrar.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent bank, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 4^th respondent, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of by directing the 4th respondent or other officer competent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of, directing the 4^th respondent or other o to consider Ext.P8 and pass orders thereon after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the 1^st respondent bank, and the 3^rd respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P8, the status quo as on today shall be maintained. It is further directed that all contentions taken by the petitioner, the 1^st respondent bank, and the 3^rd respondent shall be considered by the 4^th respondent or the o nominated by him.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.