LAKSHMI Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR KRISHNAGIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of declaration declaring that the public auction held on 18.08.2011 at the Office of the third respondent Society through its Special Officer pertaining to the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.12/2A, 12/2B, 12/6C, 12/7, in all measuring 5 acres, situated at Veeriampatti Village, Uthangarai Sub District, Krishnagiri District as null and void and in-operative.

(2.) THE Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Marketing Society Limited, Uthangarai, initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 73(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1988 on the ground that the petitioner purchased cotton from the Society in the auction conducted in the year 1984 on credit basis and she failed to repay the dues to the Society. An arbitration award was passed in ARC No.5471/84-85 for recovery of Rs.96,924.75 with 15% interest per annum till payment. Petitioner filed an appeal and challenged the award in C.M.A.(CS)No.3 of 2002 before the Co-Operative Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Dharmapuri and challenged only the execution proceedings, which was initiated in REP No.73/90-91 and no appeal against the award dated 6.1.1986 was filed. To execute the award and to realise the amount of Rs.6,22,327/- the impugned auction notice was issued by the Society on 13.7.2011. THE auction was conducted on 18.8.2011 and the 5th respondent offered the highest bid for a sum of Rs.27,25,000/- and also deposited 15% of the bid amount with the Sale Officer. However, no confirmation order is issued in favour of the 5th respondent till date.

(3.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that no wide publicity was made before conducting the auction and no proclamation of sale has been furnished to the petitioner; that the upset price has not been stated in the auction notice; and that, the property capable of fetching about Rs.3 Crores is proposed to be sold for the negligible amount of Rs.27,25,000/-. In short, the contention of the petitioner is, the mandatory conditions to conduct public auction has not been followed by the third respondent.