SAMEER ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 07.10.2004 in MCA Nos. 1709 and 1728 of 2004 in S.C.A. Nos. 1462 & 1448 of 2003, these two petitions are taken up for hearing today.

(2.) Earlier, these two petitions were disposed of by this Court vide common judgment and order dated 29.09.2003. The said judgment and order was challenged by the original petitioners before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. Nos. 1378 & 1379 of 2003 and while disposing of the said two appeals on 22.07.2004, the Division Bench has remanded the matter to this Court for the purpose of deciding the issue, namely, whether the respondent No. 4 - Vice Chairman of the Bank can lawfully purchase, directly or indirectly, any property of a member of the society sold for the recovery of his dues to the society under Rule 35 (2) of the Rules.

(3.) It is worthwhile to mention here that after the judgment and order dated 29.09.2003 was passed, the original petitioners have filed review application being M.C.A. No. 2390 of 2003 wherein it was urged on behalf of the original petitioners that the contention with regard to violation of Rule 35 (2) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) was raised by the petitioners' advocate during the course of the argument. However, the said contention was not dealt with. This Court has disposed of the said review application on 24.12.2003 holding that though during the course of arguments the said contention was raised, the said contention was not taken in the petition nor any objection was filed to that effect before the revenue authority. The Court has also negatived the argument that the said contention was not dealt with by this Court and the Court has also clarified that in number of places in the judgment, the Court has observed that the property was purchased by the Vice Chairman of the respondent No. 3 Bank. Not only that, the Court has also recorded the submissions made by Mr. A.J. Patel, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 and even in the concluding para of the judgment, it has been stated that if the petitioners were in a position to procure a buyer of the premises under challenge for worth Rs. 92,70,000.00 within a period of three months from the date of the order and if the said buyer was ready and willing to deposit the said amount with the respondent No.2, the sale confirmed in favour of respondent No.4 would get cancelled and in that eventuality, the respondent No.4 would be entitled to get back his amount of Rs. 68 lacs being the sale consideration paid by him for the said transaction.