DNYANDEO SABAJI Vs. SAMPADA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, heard finally at admission stage.

(2.) Sampada Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited (hereinafter for short referred to as the "respondent Patsanstha ") is a society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the petitioners herein were the directors of the respondent Patsanstha. The said respondent Patsanstha went in liquidation and at present, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar is looking after the affairs of the respondent Patsanstha. Thereafter, some of the depositors of respondent Patsanstha had initiated proceedings before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ahmednagar (hereinafter, for short referred to as the "Consumer Forum ") against the respondent Patsanstha and 14 managing committee members for recovery of amount of their fixed deposits. The Consumer Forum, by passing separate orders in each of the said complaints, filed by the depositors on various dates, allowed the said complaints and further held that respondent Patsanstha and managing committee members, 15 in numbers, are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the depositors as per their fixed deposits alongwith interest with costs. Though the petitioners have raised contention that the said orders passed by the Consumer Forum are exparte, without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other directors, however, undisputedly the said orders passed by the Consumer Forum have now attained finality. Further those depositors have initiated Darkhast proceedings before the Consumer Forum for execution of the said judgment and orders passed by the Consumer Forum in their favour. Accordingly, in terms of provisions of Sec. 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Act of 1986 ") the Consumer Forum has issued certificates for the said amounts varied from the depositors to depositors as per the order passed in their favour, to the Collector of the District for recovery of the amount in the same manner, as arrears of the land revenue. In consequence thereof, the Tahsildar, Ahmednagar has displayed the notice on 8/1/2019 on the notice board of the Tahsil office, Ahmednagar for auction sale of immovable properties of the defaulters. By way of this petition, the petitioners are challenging the auction notice/order dtd. 8/1/2019 issued by respondent No.2 for auction of the properties mentioned in the notice.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Chapter XI of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short "the Code ") prescribes the provisions for realization of land revenue and other revenue demands. In terms of the provisions of Sec. 176 of the Code, the process for recovery of arrears is prescribed. Learned counsel submits that in terms of the provisions of Sec. 178(1) of the Code, a notice of demand is necessary to be issued. However, respondent No.2, without following proper procedure, has issued notice under Sec. 176 of the Code r.w. Sec. 181 of the Code, straight-way putting the personal properties of the petitioners for auction sale by issuing notice dtd. 8/1/2019 for the scheduled auction on 16/1/2019. Learned counsel submits that the said notice dtd. 8/1/2019 was displayed on the notice board of the Tahsil office at Ahmednagar and they have no personal notice. The petitioners were not served with the notice of Darkhast filed before the Consumer Forum. Thus, there is violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners were not given opportunity of hearing. On 16/1/2019 the petitioners have filed detail representation to respondent No.2 pointing out all aspects in respect of non service of notice and violation of principles of natural justice. However, respondent No.2, Tahsildar, without deciding the representation filed by the petitioners, passed orders on 16/1/2019 to postpone the auction till 23/1/2019.