( 1 ) 1 WP 11004 OF 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1 WRIT PETITION NO. 11004 OF 2023 MANGESH PANDURANG PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11005 OF 2023 ARUN DAMODAR CHOUDHARI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Mr. B. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. K. B. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 … CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : 24.08.2026 PER COURT :- . On account of the failure of the petitioners’ father to discharge the loan liability within the stipulated time, the respondent-Society instituted recovery proceedings under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. An order and recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Act came to be issued. Subsequently, the land was auctioned, the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was also issued. Thereafter, the purchaser 2026:BHC-AUG:38781 ( 2 ) 1 WP 11004 OF 2023 sold the land to a third party. The sale having been confirmed and the property having been sold to the purchaser. 2. The legal representatives of the deceased borrower found themselves in difficulty when they came to know about the recovery proceedings and, therefore immediately approached this Court challenging the sale proceedings and the auction. 3. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioners fairly submits that the fixation of the upset price was challenged by the petitioners by filing a revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar. However, the said revision also came to be rejected during the pendency of the present writ petitions. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondent-Society submits that in the present petitions, the petitioners are challenging the sale certificate issued pursuant to the proceedings under Section 101 of the Act. He submits that the subsequent challenge ought not to be entertained, as the foundation of all the subsequent proceedings is the certificate issued under Section 101 of the Act. 5. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioners sought to rely upon the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Adishakti Developers Vs. The State of Maharastra and Ors reported in (2026) 5 SCC 603. He also relied upon the observations made in paragraph 39 ( 3 ) 1 WP 11004 OF 2023 thereof, which read thus: “39. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition against confirmation of sale on the ground that there is alternative remedy available. No doubt, the High Court cited Rule 107 as an alternative remedy, but it did not Rule out remedy, if any, available Under Section 154 of the 1960 Act. The legal representatives of the defaulter chose to file a revision Under Section 154 which confers wide powers on the State Government or the Registrar to call for and examine the record of any inquiry or proceeding of any matter, other than those referred to in Sub-section (9) of Section 149, where any decision or order has been passed, and against which no appeal lies, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order, and as to the regularity of such proceeding. Importantly, revisional powers conferred by the Statute are not subject to any Rules made under the Statute. Further, remedies available Under Sub-rules (13) and (14) of Rule 107 are not in the nature of an appeal to set aside any decision or order rather it is an application to set aside sale on grounds specified therein. In our view, therefore, the revisional power conferred by Section 154 is extremely wide which would include examining the legality and propriety of a proceeding qua confirmation of sale. Moreover, such power, in our view, cannot be limited by the Rules framed under the Statute. Thus, in our view, merely because the applicant had not taken recourse to the remedy available Under Sub-rules (13) and (14) of Rule 107 of 1961 Rules, the State Government or the Registrar were not denuded of their power to call for the records of any enquiry or proceeding of any matter, where any decision or order has been passed by a subordinate officer, to satisfy themselves as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order, and as to the regularity of such proceeding. Another contention against the maintainability of revision is non-deposit of the decretal amount, which, in our view, is misconceived as that would be required Under Sub-section (2A) of Section 154 when revision is against the recovery certificate. Here, the revision was against the confirmation of sale. Therefore, if the sale confirmation is void, being in teeth of the provisions of extant 1961 Rules, a revision to annul the same would not require a pre-deposit as contemplated in Sub- section (2A) of Section 154 of the 1960 Act. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the revision preferred by the legal representatives of the borrower was maintainable Under Section 154 of the 1960 Act.” 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the petitioner therein had taken recourse to Section 154 of the Act. The powers under Section 154 are wide and would encompass the legality or propriety of the confirmation of ( 4 ) 1 WP 11004 OF 2023 sale. In view thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the revision petition was maintainable under Section 154 of the Act. 7. Thus in fact it is clear that the petitioners can avail remedy under Section 154 of the Act even to challenge the auction and sale. In the present case, the petitioners have not exhausted the revisional remedy under Section 154 of the Act. The auction and sale proceedings have been directly challenged before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. in view of the above, I find that the present writ petitions challenging the auction and sale proceedings directly before this Court without taking recourse to the statutory remedy either under Section 107 or at least under Section 154 of the Act may not be maintainable. It is clarified that a window under Section 154 of the Act remains open to the petitioners even without taking recourse to the proceedings under Section 107 of the Act. 9. After arguing for some time and noticing the disinclination of this Court, learned Advocate for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the present writ petitions with liberty to take appropriate proceedings, including proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. He submits that the period spent in prosecuting the present writ petitions may be directed to be considered while deciding the question of delay, if any, in filing such proceedings. ( 5 ) 1 WP 11004 OF 2023 10. In view of the above, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the present writ petitions with liberty as prayed for. 11. The writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. 12. Needless to mention, all contentions of both the parties are kept open. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] PRW