AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sushil Harkauli, J.—We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
It appears that the three writ petitioners took a loan for purchase of a tractor in the year 1998. The loan amount was Rs. 2,15,000/-. There was default in payment of installments, because of which proceedings were taken u/s 14 (1) (4) of the M.P. Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Adhiniyam''). The tractor which had been purchased by the loan was attached and sold to the respondent no.3 of this writ petition in the year 2000.
Subsequently, the writ petitioner preferred a revision before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society. The revision was preferred u/s 80-A of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 which empowers the Registrar or his delegate not below Joint Registrar to have the usual revisional power with regard to any inquiry, proceedings or decisions, obviously under the 1960 Act and not under other enactments.
On the other hand section 21 of the Adhiniyam (as contra distinguished from the Act of 1960) provides that if no application is made to set aside the sale or if an application is made and disallowed u/s 20 of the Adhiniyam, an order will be passed confirming the sale and such confirmation shall become absolute. The 1960 Act cannot override the 1966 Adhiniyam. Both operate in separate fields and therefore a sale which has been confirmed and become absolute u/s 21 of the 1966 Adhiniyam is not amenable to revisional power u/s 80-A of the 1960 Act. Therefore, the entire proceedings from the stage of filing the revision are non-est.
To continue with the facts the Joint Registrar by the order dated 25/07/06 set aside the sale in exercise of powers u/s 80-A of the 1960 Act. That order dated 25/07/06 passed by the Joint Registrar has been set aside by the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal in a revision no. 249/06 by the impugned order dated 13/04/09. The illegal order while has been set aside should not be restored in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, interference is called for in this writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.