SHANTHARAM VAJRAPPA ANDAGI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is by an auction purchaser of a house property sold at a public auction in execution of a decree or award obtained by the 4th respondent -Co-operative Bank towards recovery of the loan advanced by it to the 5th respondent. The petitioner was the successful bidder at the auction held on 104-1981. The property in question is situate in Malagi village, Mundagodu Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. He made an application under the relevant provisions namely. Rule 38A of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for setting aside the sale. But that was rejected oh the ground that he tendered the dues to the Bank beyond the time specified in that behalf. An appeal filed to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies also did not succeed. Against that he preferred a revision petition to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. That also did not succeed. Therefore, a petition was presented under Sec. 108 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, to the Government. The Government after considering all aspects of the case passed the impugned order dated 14-6-1988 by which the safe has been set aside.

(2.) In the meanwhile, the auction purchaser through the process of the Civil Judge's Court took delivery of the house which he had purchased on 18-4-1987. Therefore, aggrieved by the order at Annexure-E passed by the Government in exercise of its power under Sec. 108 of the Act, he has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution inter alia contending that the order is a nullity; that it is passed without notice to him and that he having been put in possession, the sale cannot be set aside.

(3.) In so far as the first of the contentions concerned, the Court finds itself in some difficulty to accede to it. It is seen from the order, ex facie, that notice issued to him about the revision petition pending before the Government was returned with the postal shara or endorsement that the same had been refused. Normally, it is now well settled law that if service of notice is refused, it is deemed sufficient service on the person who has refused it. That he had no notice of the proceeding cannot be accepted by this Court. He has, however, alleged in the petition that the 5th respondent, the original debtor and former owner of the house in collusion with the postal department had manoeuvred to get such an endorsement on the notice and had it relumed. He came to know of the order only when the order was communicated to him just before filing the writ petition. But, in that averment, there is no specific allegation that who in the postal department was in collusion with the 5th respondent. It is a very vague charge and cannot be accepted at its face value unless there are persons specifically named, this Court must reluctantly refuse to accede to such contentions in the writ petition and hold that he had notice. If he had notice and chose to remain absent then he cannot now contend that he has been denied an opportunity and there has been violation of rules of natural justice.