Satish Kumar Harbanslal Goyal v. State Of Maharashtra And 2 ORS.

905-WP.2627.2013.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2627 OF 2013 Satish Kumar Harbanslal Goyal } Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and Ors.

} Respondents Mr. Dharam Sharma i/b. M/s. Dharam and Co. for the Petitioner.

Mr. Milind More Addl. Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Madhur Rai i/b. M/s. PRS Legal for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & G. S. PATEL, JJ.

DATED :- FEBRUARY 18, 2016 P.C. :- After the detailed hearing on the earlier date, we had directed notice to be issued to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. That notice has now been served. It is evidenced from a perusal of the Petition and all Annexures thereto that the Petitioner questions the auction sale. If he has questioned the attachment and the auction/sale of the property as a consequence thereof, then, in terms of Rule 107(19) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, the Petitioner can approach the Special Recovery Officer, who has proceeded to attach and sell the property in J.V.Salunke,PA

905-WP.2627.2013.doc question. If the attachment which is wrongful and illegal as alleged is proved by the Petitioner, then, all consequences would follow. When the Petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy, then, we need not interfere in the Writ Jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is disposed of by clarifying that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions.

(G.S.PATEL, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) J.V.Salunke,PA