JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the auction notice dated 25.11.2004 (Annexure 15) and is seeking direction against the respondents for restraining them from auctioning the property of the petitioner mentioned in the auction notice dated 25.11.2004 and further the respondents may be restrained from taking any other action till the matter is finally decided by the RBI. 3. At the time of admission of the writ petition, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was willing to pay the loan amount but when the petitioner found that the respondents are demanding the amount which is not due in the petitioner and has wrongly calculated the interest and have not given credit of deposited amount, the petitioner raised objection, upon which, the respondents vide letter dated 28.4.2003 (Annexure 5) admitted that the respondent bank wrongly levied the interest of Rs.3,29,482/-and now they have corrected their account. It was also submitted that the petitioner submitted an application before the Banking Lokpal where the petitioner's application is still pending for consideration. It was also submitted by the petitioner's application is still pending for consideration. It was also submitted by the petitioner that even the bank subsequently admitted that amount of Rs.15 lakhs are required to be given credit in the account of the petitioner but they came out with a new case that the bank is having due of more than Rs.12 lakhs in the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted that even during the pendency of the matter by the competent authority, the respondents all of sudden issued a notice for auction on 25.11.2004 against the petitioner. 4. This Court after observing that the above are the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, stayed the operation of the auction notice dated 25.11.2004. 5. The respondents have submitted reply to the writ petition and an application u/Art. 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the stay order and for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. 4. This Court after observing that the above are the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, stayed the operation of the auction notice dated 25.11.2004. 5. The respondents have submitted reply to the writ petition and an application u/Art. 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the stay order and for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The respondents have raised preliminary objections namely, that Madhav Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. for whose loan recovery, the auction notice dated 25.11.2004 was issued, has not been impleaded as party and the petitioner impleaded the officers of Madhav Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. only, therefore, no writ can be issued against Madhav Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. or against the interest of Madhav Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. The respondents further submit that the writ petition against Madhav Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd is not maintainable in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Niyamat Ali v. Sirohi District Commercial Co-operative Bank Limited & Anr., reported in WLR 1993 (Raj.) 896. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the auction notice has been issued after following the process of law as provided in the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act of 1965'). A notice u/S. 117 of the Act of 1965 was issued to the petitioner in the year 2000, copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure R-1. The petitioner did not raise any objection and even did not appear to oppose the proceedings, therefore, a decree was passed on 19.10.2000 for Rs.42,80,052/- and interest thereon, copy of decree is placed on record as Annexure R-2. This fact has been suppressed by the petitioner and the petitioner has not challenged the proceedings and the decree in the writ petition, therefore, on this ground alone for suppression of important material fact and not challenging the decree dated 19.10.2000, the petitioner cannot challenge the auction notice dated 25.11.2004. 8. According to learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner submitted wrong facts before this Court and wrongly projected that all of a sudden, auction notice has been issued and the complaint of the petitioner is pending before RBI or before the Banking Lokpal. It is submitted that the Banking Lokpal has returned the complaint by saying that the matter is beyond the jurisdiction of Banking Lokpal. It is submitted that the Banking Lokpal has returned the complaint by saying that the matter is beyond the jurisdiction of Banking Lokpal. The complaint of the petitioner was closed by RBI for which RBI has already sent letter to the petitioner dated 11.11.2003 which is placed on record as Annexure R-9. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the writ petition as filed is maintainable in view of the fact that the respondent No.1 is the original name of Madhav Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and to avoid any controversy, the petitioner has submitted an application for impleading Madhav Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. as party. It is also submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Rohtas Industries Union & Ors. reported in AIR 1976 SC 425 and in view of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. reported in JT 2005(2) SC 8 the writ petition can be issued against even a private person and if not against the private person, when there is a case of violation of the statutory right or fundamental right of a party is claimed even if one may not be falling in the definition of State. It is also submitted that the decree which is sought to be set up by the respondent is nullity. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the record, it is fully proved that the respondents have wrongly calculated the amount of interest and other charges and they themselves have admitted the mistake which the bank has committed, therefore, in these circumstances, the writ petition of the petitioner is maintainable. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. So far as not impleading of Madhav Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. is concerned, this Court is not inclined to dismiss the writ petition on this ground because the petitioner is seeking to implead Madhav Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. as party in the writ petition. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. So far as not impleading of Madhav Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. is concerned, this Court is not inclined to dismiss the writ petition on this ground because the petitioner is seeking to implead Madhav Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. as party in the writ petition. However, since the petitioner deliberately suppressed the important material facts from this Court that the proceedings under statutory provisions of the Act of 1965 were initiated against the petitioner and for that purpose, he was served with a notice as back as on 10.1.2000 and he did not appear to raise any objection about either the jurisdiction or about the amount before the notice issuing authority and thereafter, a decree was passed on 19.10.2000. There is no reason available in the writ petition for not disclosing these material facts which go to the root of the matter. The very foundation of the auction notice since is not under challenge, the petitioner deemed to have accepted the decree. 13. Even if the above decree is illegal in the opinion of the petitioner, then the petitioner could have preferred an appeal against the decree passed. That having not been done by the petitioner for last five years and the petitioner suppressing these facts preferred writ petition after 5 years of passing of the decree to unsettle the position by raising several disputes about the liabilities of the petitioner and the charges levied by the bank against the petitioner under the impression that this Court will enquire into the accounts of the petitioner and find out that the charges levied against the petitioner are correct or not. Assuming for the sake of the arguments that the bank, after the decree, recognised certain payments from the petitioner but that does not meant that the liability of the decree is affected by it. 14. In a case where money decree is passed, the judgment debtor can satisfy the executing Court that the decree stands satisfied and in that way if any credit is given to the petitioner, then the bank has not committed any wrong. 14. In a case where money decree is passed, the judgment debtor can satisfy the executing Court that the decree stands satisfied and in that way if any credit is given to the petitioner, then the bank has not committed any wrong. However, there appears to be no reason for the petitioner to suppress these relevant and important facts in the writ petition and the petitioner's challenge to the decree in rejoinder cannot be allowed to be entertained because of the simple reasons that there is no explanation why the petitioner did not disclose the material facts from this Court and did not challenge that the decree being nullity. The petitioner cannot be permitted to convert the rejoinder as a writ petition to challenge the decree which has been passed under the statutory provisions of law. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the recovery proceedings initiated under the Old Act of 1965 lapsed because of the enactment of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 and for that purpose, he relies upon a judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Girdhari Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3571/2000) decided on 8.8.2003 , where this Court held that recovery proceedings will have to be initiated afresh in accordance with law. 16. Since, the petitioner has suppressed important material facts, regarding decree itself and by this conduct, he became dis-entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court u/Art. 226, therefore, no indulgence can be granted to the petitioner when the petitioner is in default since long and wants to take the benefit of legal technicalities only to deny the payment of bank by raising disputes about procedural defects only, therefore, this objection raised against the recovery proceedings cannot be allowed to be raised by the petitioner after such an inordinate delay as the new Act itself came into force with effect from 13.11.2002 and the petitioner did not choose to challenge the proceedings of the bank. Rather, the petitioner accepted his liability and even paid lakhs of rupees to the Bank during this period without challenging the jurisdiction. 17. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed. The stay order granted by this Court on 20.12.2004 is vacated.Writ petition dismissed. *******