Judgment : 1. Heard the learning advocates for the respective sides at length, in both the petitions. 2. Rule, in both the Writ Petitions. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. WRIT PETITION NO.1455 OF 2013 4. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 19th January 2013, passed in Revision Petition No. 13 of 2012 by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. By the impugned judgment and order, the auction proceedings carried out by the petitioners have been set aside solely on the ground that 15% of the auction amount was not deposited by the purchaser. 5. The petitioner No. 1 is a Bank registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1960"). Petitioner No. 2 is the Special Recovery Officer of the said bank at its Gulmandi Branch. Respondent No. 1 is the defaulting borrower. Respondent No. 2 is the auction purchaser. Respondent No. 3 is the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad Division. Respondent No. 4 is the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad. Respondent No. 5 is the District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Pune. 6. The petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 had obtained cash credit loan from the petitioner bank. The said account became a non-performing asset (NPA). The bank was, therefore, constrained to approach the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad seeking issuance of a recovery certificate under section 101 of the Act of 1960. The competent authority issued notices to the concerned parties and after affording an opportunity of hearing, the recovery certificate for an amount of Rs. 1,30,75,236.71 Ps. Was issued along with interest at the rate of 12.75% from first of July 2009 till the date of actual recovery. 7. As per the recovery certificate, petitioner No. 2 issued a paper publication for auctioning the agricultural land gut No. 21 admeasuring 1 hectare 67 R situated at village Sultanpur, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. The public notice was published in Daily Sakal on 12th February 2011. The auction was to be conducted at 11 AM at the site on 14th March 2011. 8. The petitioners submit that the auction was conducted by petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 2 was declared as the successful bidder for an amount of Rs. 2,15,00,000/-, out of 12 participants. The public notice was published in Daily Sakal on 12th February 2011. The auction was to be conducted at 11 AM at the site on 14th March 2011. 8. The petitioners submit that the auction was conducted by petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 2 was declared as the successful bidder for an amount of Rs. 2,15,00,000/-, out of 12 participants. The successful bidder respondent No. 2 had initially deposited Rs. 5,00,000/- as the earnest money deposit. Therefore, the balance amount of Rs.27, 25, 000/-was deposited by a demand draft drawn on the Malkapur Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Aurangabad, dated 14th March 2011. The same was deposited and credited on the very same day. The earnest amount of Rs.Rs.5,00,000/- earlier deposited by respondent 2 was added to the amount deposited by a demand draft and thus, the total amount of 15% was accounted for with petitioner No. 2. 9. The petitioner submits that as per the terms and conditions of the auction sale, the purchaser respondent No. 2 deposited the balance amount of Rs.1, 82, 75, 000/-within 15 days as required, on 22nd of March 2 011. Request for issuance of sale certificate in favour of respondent No. 2 was accordingly made. 10. Respondent No. 1 challenged the said auction proceedings by filing Revision Petition No. 8 of 2011, before respondent 3 Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies Aurangabad. Several objections were raised. Respondent 3, by its judgment dated 12th October 2011, directed the Recovery Officer petitioner No. 2 to decide the objections of respondent No.1, dated 5th of April 2011, within 30 days. As per the said directions, the Recovery Officer after conducting a proper hearing and giving sufficient opportunity to all the parties, rejected the objections of respondent No. 1 by its order dated 11 November 2011. The documents demanded by respondent No. 1 were also supplied to him. 11. Respondent No. 1, being aggrieved by the rejection of his objections, preferred a Revision Petition No. 13 of 2012 before respondent No. 3 for the challenging the order of the Recovery Officer dated 11 November 2011. Once again, respondent No.1 raised several objections, including the objection that the deposit of 15% amount by the successful option bidder was not perfect. The amount deposited by respondent 2 was short by Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore the auction could not be said to have been legally and validly completed. 12. Once again, respondent No.1 raised several objections, including the objection that the deposit of 15% amount by the successful option bidder was not perfect. The amount deposited by respondent 2 was short by Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore the auction could not be said to have been legally and validly completed. 12. By the impugned judgment and order dated 9th of January 2013, respondent 3 allowed the Revision Petition of respondent No. 1 and was pleased to set aside the auction proceedings dated 14th of March 2011. Fresh auction proceedings were directed by respondent No.3. 13. The petitioner submits that it is purely a matter of calculation that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-were initially deposited by each bidder along with respondent No. 2. Eventually, this amount is adjusted in the final amount to be paid by the bidder who has quoted a specific amount. It is therefore, an exercise of adding up the amounts so as to ensure that the total amount is paid by the successful bidder. 14. It is in this context that respondent No. 2 has deposited an amount of Rs.27,25,000/-as a part of the 15% of the total amount. By doing so, it was requested that the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-deposited as earnest money, be added to this amount so as to equal 15% payment of the total amount on the date on which he was declared as a successful bidder. 15. It is, therefore, contended that the conclusions of respondent No. 3 are extremely technical and do not appeal to logic and reason. An otherwise proper and legal auction process has been set aside on this technical ground by respondent No. 3, and that too, at the behest of respondent No. 1 who is a defaulting borrower. Neither has respondent No.1 repaid the loan amount which he had obtained from the petitioner bank, nor is respondent No.1 allowing the auction process to be completed. A party which has come with tainted hands ought not to be given an opportunity to raise technical objections and succeed on the same. 16. It is noteworthy that respondent No. 1 has not challenged the impugned judgment separately on account of his other objections having been rejected by respondent No. 3. A party which has come with tainted hands ought not to be given an opportunity to raise technical objections and succeed on the same. 16. It is noteworthy that respondent No. 1 has not challenged the impugned judgment separately on account of his other objections having been rejected by respondent No. 3. So far as the issue involved in the Revision Petition No.28 of 2012 filed by respondent No. 1 is concerned, I would be dealing with the said subject in W.P.No.1461 of 2013 after this Writ Petition. 17. Shri R.T.Nagargoje, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 has repeated his objections which he had raised before respondent No. 3. It was contended that the Recovery Officer has acted as a Sale Officer and conducted the auction proceedings. The same officer could not have acted in dual capacity. However, he has admitted that the auction notice was not challenged by respondent No.1, in as much as, the impugned judgment has not been challenged by him separately. 18. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the terms and conditions of the auction sale. Clause 7 of the said terms ought to be read as being mandatory in nature and not directory. According to him, Clause 7 mandates a clear payment of 15% of the bid amount and that too in cash. Respondent 2 has deposited a demand draft by deducting Rs.5,00,000/- which has been deposited as earnest amount earlier and has paid the remaining amount with the request that the said Rs. 5,00,000/- be added up and the total of 15% be accounted for. This is impermissible. 19. So far as the multi-fold submissions of respondent No. 1 are concerned, barring the objection as regards payment of 15% of the bidding amount, I am inclined to reject his submissions, primarily, for the reason that respondent No.1 has not challenged the impugned judgment in a petition before this Court. He cannot claim reliefs in a petition filed by the petitioners. Nevertheless, I have heard him on the issue of payment of 15% of the bid amount, which objection has been dealt with in the impugned judgment challenged by the petitioners. 20. The petitioners have drawn my attention to a circular dated 10th of August 2011 issued by the Government of Maharashtra. Nevertheless, I have heard him on the issue of payment of 15% of the bid amount, which objection has been dealt with in the impugned judgment challenged by the petitioners. 20. The petitioners have drawn my attention to a circular dated 10th of August 2011 issued by the Government of Maharashtra. By the said circular, the Government of Maharashtra has permitted the Recovery Officer to operate and function as a Sale Officer. Unless this circular is specifically challenged and is set aside, the submissions of respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted. 21. Respondent No.1 has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of the Manager, Adarsh Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd and others Versus the State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 3511 of 2011. Contention is that by the said judgment, the circular issued by the Govt. dated 19th January 2005 has been quashed and set aside. It is, therefore, contended by respondent No. 1 that the Government Circular dated 10th August 2011 also be declared as null and void. 22. I am unable to accept this contention specifically for the reason that the Government Circular dated 19th January 2005 had resulted in taking away the powers of the Recovery Officer to confirm the auction sale proceedings and the said power was vested in the District Deputy registrar (DDR) to confirm the said sale. By the said circular, the powers vested in the Recovery Officer by law were sought to be usurped and taken away to be vested in the District Deputy Registrar with the aid of a Government circular. This Court, therefore, set aside the said circular on the ground that the statutory powers vested in the Recovery Officer could not be taken away by a circular. In the instant case, neither has the government circular dated 10th of August 2011 been challenged by any person, nor does it take away the powers of the Recovery Officer vested in him by law. Therefore, the contention of respondent No. 1 is baseless. 23. Learned Advocate for respondent 2 has submitted that he is no longer interested in the said auction sale and does not intend to maintain his offer despite having deposited the entire amount pursuant to the said auction sale. Therefore, the contention of respondent No. 1 is baseless. 23. Learned Advocate for respondent 2 has submitted that he is no longer interested in the said auction sale and does not intend to maintain his offer despite having deposited the entire amount pursuant to the said auction sale. He has prayed that respondent 2 is desirous that the entire amount deposited by him with petitioner 2 in pursuance to his auction bid, be returned to him. He therefore submits that the direction given by respondent 3 in the impugned judgment be upheld. I would deal with this aspect in the connected Writ Petition No.1461 of 2013 since the impugned judgment challenged by these petitioners in that writ petition, pertains to the other Revision Petition No.28 of 2012 filed by respondent 2 herein. 24. After having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective sides at length and after having gone through the petition paper book with their assistance, I am of the view that respondent 3 has adopted a hyper technical approach. Rule 107(11) (g) of the rules of 1961 reads as under; – "107. Procedure for attachment and sale of property under Section 156.:............ (11) In the attachment and sale or sale without attachment of immovable property, the following rules shall be observed :............ (g) A sum of money equal to 15 per cent of the price of the immovable property shall be deposited by the purchaser in the hands of the Sale Officer at the time of the purchase, and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be resold: Provided that where the applicant is the purchaser and is entitled to set off the purchase money under clause (fc), the Sale-Officer shall dispense with the requirements of this clause." 25. As such, it is clear that the Rules do not prescribe the depositing of an earnest amount. Moreover, the earnest amount in this case of Rs. 5,00,000/-had been deposited by respondent 2 with the Recovery Officer petitioner No. 2. The amount of Rs. 27,25,000/- was deposited by respondent No. 2 with the same Recovery Officer by a demand draft. The said amount was credited instantly. In a sense, therefore, an amount equal to 15% was credited with the Recovery Officer. 26. 5,00,000/-had been deposited by respondent 2 with the Recovery Officer petitioner No. 2. The amount of Rs. 27,25,000/- was deposited by respondent No. 2 with the same Recovery Officer by a demand draft. The said amount was credited instantly. In a sense, therefore, an amount equal to 15% was credited with the Recovery Officer. 26. The expectation expressed by the DDR in the impugned judgment that respondent 2 should have sought withdrawal of the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/-and after receiving it, should have added it to the remaining amount and then deposited the total amount equal to 15% of the bid amount, appears to be a wholly erroneous approach. 27. In my view, there is no justification in the conclusion of the DDR in the impugned judgment. It is just a matter of calculations and procedure of depositing the 15% amount along with the earnest money. It is not in dispute that the earnest amount deposited by the successful bidder is finally added up to the total bid amount to be paid by the successful bidder. 28. In the backdrop, it is far-fetched to hold that despite the earnest amount being with the Recovery Officer, the same should have been withdrawn by respondent No. 2 and should have been added up to the amount of Rs.27,25,000/-and then should have deposited the said amount with the Recovery Officer. Withdrawal of the earnest amount would have been a lengthy procedure. 29. In my view, clause 7 of the terms and conditions of auction sale is only meant to ensure that the bonafides of the successful bidder are established by depositing 15% of the bid amount immediately and in cash with the Recovery Officer. The said clause can be interpreted only to mean that an amount equal to 15% of the bid amount should be deposited with the Recovery Officer immediately so as to establish the bonafides of the successful bidder. 30. When the amount deposited by respondent No. 2 along with the earnest amount equaled to the 15% of the bid amount, that I am of the view that neither clause 7 of the terms and conditions of the auction is violated, nor has there been any illegality in depositing 15% of the bid amount by respondent No. 2. 31. 30. When the amount deposited by respondent No. 2 along with the earnest amount equaled to the 15% of the bid amount, that I am of the view that neither clause 7 of the terms and conditions of the auction is violated, nor has there been any illegality in depositing 15% of the bid amount by respondent No. 2. 31. In this view of the matter, I am convinced that the impugned judgment and order dated 9th of January 2013 passed by respondent 3 to the extent of allowing Revision No. 13 of 2012 is wholly erroneous, perverse and unsustainable. The same is therefore quashed and set aside. I would be dealing with the conclusions of respondent 3 to the extent of clauses 2,3 and 4 of the operative part in the same impugned judgment dt. 09.01.2013 in relation to Revision No.28/2012, separately in Writ Petition No.1461 of 2013. 32. Writ Petition No.1455 of 2013 is, therefore, allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. WRIT PETITION NO.1461 OF 2013 33. Petitioner No.1 is a Bank registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1960"). Petitioner No. 2 is the Special Recovery Officer of the said bank. Respondent No.1 is the borrower, who had obtained cash credit loan from the petitioner bank and the said account became a non-performing account (NPA). Respondent No. 2 is the successful auction bidder. Respondent No. 3 is the Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad which has passed the impugned order. Since the partner (respondent No.1) passed away, his legal heirs have been brought on record at serial Nos. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3. 34. Since respondent No.1 could not repay the loan taken, the petitioner bank approached the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad for seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate under Section 101 of the Act of 1960. The competent authority issued notices to the concerned parties and after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, the certificate for recovery of Rs. 1,30,75,236.71/- along with interest at the rate of 12.75% from first of July 2009 till the date of actual recovery was issued. 35. The competent authority issued notices to the concerned parties and after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, the certificate for recovery of Rs. 1,30,75,236.71/- along with interest at the rate of 12.75% from first of July 2009 till the date of actual recovery was issued. 35. Petitioner No. 2 the Special Recovery Officer of the petitioner bank issued a paper publication declaring the auction of the agricultural land gut No. 21 admeasuring 1H and 67R situated at village Sultanpur, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad in daily Sakal on 12th of February 2011. The auction was to be conducted on 14th of March 2011 at 11 AM on the site. 36. The petitioners submit that the auction was conducted by the Recovery Officer on the said date. Respondent No. 2 was declared as the successful bidder for having offered an amount of Rs. 2,15,00,000/-. There were in all 12 participants in the said auction proceedings. Respondent No. 2 deposited 15% of the total bid amount. The demand draft for the said amount was deposited and credited on the same day with the petitioner bank. The remaining 85% amount was deposited by respondent No. 2 within 15 days on 22nd of March 2011. He, therefore, requested for issuance of the same certificate. 37. Respondent No.1 borrower challenged the auction by filing Revision Petition No. 8 of 2011 before the respondent 3 authority. By the judgment and order dated 12th of October 2011, petitioner No. 2 Recovery Officer was directed to decide the objections raised by respondent No.1 vide his application dated 5th of April 2011, within 30 days. Accordingly, the Recovery Officer heard respondent No.1 by affording a sufficient opportunity of hearing. The documents sought by respondent No.1 were also supplied to him. Finally, by its order dated 11th November 2011, the petitioner No. 2 Special Recovery Officer rejected the objections of respondent No.1 with a reasoned order. 38. Respondent No.1 challenged the order of petitioner No.2 dated 11th November 2011, by filing Revision Petition No. 13 of 2012 before respondent No. 3 authority. Several objections were raised before respondent No. 3. In the meanwhile, petitioner No. 2 Special Recovery Officer forwarded the proposal to the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune (DDR) for seeking sanction to the sale. The DDR passed an order dated 29th November 2011, thereby sanctioning the sale. Several objections were raised before respondent No. 3. In the meanwhile, petitioner No. 2 Special Recovery Officer forwarded the proposal to the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune (DDR) for seeking sanction to the sale. The DDR passed an order dated 29th November 2011, thereby sanctioning the sale. According to the petitioner bank the sale was sanctioned by petitioner No. 2 on the same date 29th of November 2011. The sale certificate was executed in favour of respondent No. 2 purchaser on 30th of November 2011. 39. As such, respondent No.1 challenged the order dated 29th of November 2011 passed by the DDR before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 9393/2011 on the ground that the sale should have been confirmed by the petitioner No. 2 Special Recovery Officer and not by the DDR. The petitioner tried to reason out that the sale was confirmed by petitioner No. 2 Special Recovery Officer on the same day i.e. 29th of November 2011. However, by its judgment and order dated 18th July 2012, this Court allowed the Writ Petition and the impugned order dated 29th of November 2011 passed by the DDR, confirming the sale, was quashed and set aside. This Court has concluded that the order of confirmation of sale ought to be passed by the Special Recovery Officer and not by the DDR who has no power to confirm the sale. 40. This Court while delivering its above said judgment dated 18th July 2012, has referred to the observations of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3511 of 2011 dated 13th October 2011. Paragraph 14 of the judgment dated 18th July 2012 reads as under; – "14. Apart from the above, this court in writ petition No. 3511 of 2011, decided on 13.10.2011, while interpreting the provisions of sub-Rule 14 of Rule 107, in para 9, held thus:- “9. ........... I am afraid, this submission is completely devoid of merit. The Circular, referred to above, issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies on 19th January, 2005 has no basis in law, it has no legal sanctity in law. As said above, the Recovery Officer was appointed as per the provisions of Rule 2 (h) of the Rules. Once a person is appointed as Recovery Officer, he becomes the representative of the Registrar having all the powers to do whatever is required to be done under the Rules. As said above, the Recovery Officer was appointed as per the provisions of Rule 2 (h) of the Rules. Once a person is appointed as Recovery Officer, he becomes the representative of the Registrar having all the powers to do whatever is required to be done under the Rules. He wields all the powers given to him by the Rules. So, if clause (v) of sub-rule 14 empowers him to confirm the sale, such power cannot be diluted or diverted by issuing a Circular. Even the Registrar cannot do so. Sub-rule 14 does not require the Recovery Officer to send the proposal for confirmation to either District Deputy Registrar or the Registrar himself. So, by sending Circular, the Registrar could not have limited the powers of the Recovery Officer, lawfully appointed under the provisions of the Act and Rules. So, the procedure adopted by the Recovery Officer in this case for sending the proposal for confirmation to the District Deputy Registrar was unnecessary and had no basis in law. If such step taken by the Recovery Officer was unnecessary, then the order passed pursuant to such unnecessary step has no legal sanctity. The order passed by the District Deputy Registrar confirming the sale is not an order in the eye of law and has no sanctity of law. If such an order was no order in the eye of law, there was no possibility of challenging it before the revisional authority under Section 154 of the Act. In view of this discussion, I hold that the revision filed by respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 2 was not maintainable and the order passed by respondent No. 2 on such revision has no legal sanctity and cannot be upheld. So, apparently since there was no order which was capable of being examined before the revisional court, the revisional authority could not have entertained the revision.” Needless to state, the order of the DDR dated 29th of November 2011 was set aside in this case. 41. Respondent No.1 filed Revision Petition No. 28 of 2012, challenging order dated 29th of November 2011 passed by petitioner No. 2 Special Recovery Officer confirming the sale. 42. 41. Respondent No.1 filed Revision Petition No. 28 of 2012, challenging order dated 29th of November 2011 passed by petitioner No. 2 Special Recovery Officer confirming the sale. 42. Contention of respondent No.1 was that, when the order of confirmation of sale passed by the DDR dated 29th of November 2011 was quashed and set aside by the judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2012 in Writ Petition No. 9393 of 2011, no order has been passed by petitioner No.2, independently, for confirmation of sale. 43. After hearing the parties, respondent No.3, by the impugned judgment and order dated 9th January 2013 was pleased to set aside the order dated 29th November 2011 passed by petitioner No.2. 44. Contention of the petitioners is that though the order of the DDR, dated 29th of November 2011, has been set aside by this Court by concluding that the Special Recovery Officer is empowered to sanction the sale, petitioner No. 2 has, therefore, passed an order on 29th November, 2011 confirming the sale. It was, therefore, contended that the Special Recovery Officer, independently, has complied with Rule 107(14)(iii) of the MCS rules, 1961 and has accordingly, confirmed the sale by passing an order on 29th of November 2011. It was, therefore, contended that there is no illegality in the said order. It was also contended that the quashing of the order of the DDR does not preclude petitioner No. 2 Special Recovery Officer to pass an order under the Rules and confirm the sale. 45. Respondent No. 2, the successful bidder, has submitted that he is no longer interested in the said transaction. The obstacles and hurdles created by respondent No.1 borrower has frustrated the business plans of respondent No. 2. His entire money paid pursuant to his auction bid, has now got locked and the possession of the land is still not delivered to him. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the amount deposited by respondent No. 2 as the successful bidder, be returned to him with interest, as he desires to withdraw from the said proceedings, by upholding clauses 3 and 4 of the operative part of the impugned judgment. 46. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the amount deposited by respondent No. 2 as the successful bidder, be returned to him with interest, as he desires to withdraw from the said proceedings, by upholding clauses 3 and 4 of the operative part of the impugned judgment. 46. Rule 107(14)(iii) of the MCS Rules 1961 read thus:– “(14) (iii) On the expiration of thirty days from the date of sale, if no application to have the sale set aside is made or if such application has been made and rejected, the Recovery Officer shall make an order confirming the sale: Provided that if he shall have reason to believe that the sale ought to be set aside notwithstanding that no such application has been made or on grounds other than those alleged in any application which has been made and rejected, he may, after recording his reasons in writing, set aside the sale. ....." 47. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective sides at length and after going through the petition paper book with their assistance, I find that petitioner No. 2 Special Recovery Officer has not passed an independent and separate order by exercising his powers under Rule 107(14)(iii) of the MCS rules 1961. The order dated 29th of November 2011, in no uncertain words, indicates that because the DDR has confirmed the sale, that petitioner No. 2 declared that the sale is confirmed. It is not an independent order passed by petitioner No. 2 within his powers. It is in fact, a mere noting on the roznama of the proceedings. 48. The respondent No. 3 authority has observed in the impugned order that petitioner No. 2 has the jurisdiction and the powers to pass an order for confirming the sale. It is concluded that this has not been done. It is also observed that this Court in Writ Petition No. 3511/2011, decided on 13th October 2011, has concluded that the Special Recovery Officer has the powers to confirm the sale. It is also noted that this Court, by its judgment dated 18th July 2012 in Writ Petition No. 9393 of 2011 has set aside the order of the DDR in this case. After considering the circumstances and the fact situation, respondent No.3 authority has allowed the Revision Petition No. 28 of 2012, filed by respondent No.1 borrower. 49. It is also noted that this Court, by its judgment dated 18th July 2012 in Writ Petition No. 9393 of 2011 has set aside the order of the DDR in this case. After considering the circumstances and the fact situation, respondent No.3 authority has allowed the Revision Petition No. 28 of 2012, filed by respondent No.1 borrower. 49. Respondent 3 authority has relied upon Rule 107(14)(iv) and has concluded that since the sale has not been confirmed by petitioner No. 2 Special Recovery Officer, the entire bid amount deposited by respondent No. 2 successful bidder is required to be returned to it. 50. Rule 107 (14)(iv) of the MCS Rules 1961 reads thus:– "107(14)(iv). Whenever the sale of any immovable property is not so confirmed or is set aside, the deposit or the purchase money, as the case may be, shall be returned to the purchaser." 51. I find that respondent No. 3 by delivering the impugned judgment, has correctly understood the ambit of Rule 107(14)(iii) and Rule 107(14)(iv). In the backdrop of the order of the DDR dated 29th November 2011, having been quashed and set aside by this Court, the order of petitioner No. 2 Special Recovery Officer was purely a noting on the roznama sheet of the proceedings. 52. In my view it cannot be said to be an independent order passed under rule 107(14)(iii). The said order clearly indicates that it was a noting of petitioner No. 2 based on the order passed by the DDR. As such, the said noting was rightly held to be unsustainable in law. Consequentially, once it is concluded that the auction sale is not confirmed, the entire amount deposited by the successful bidder deserves to be returned to it. 53. So also, by the impugned judgment, petitioner No. 2 is granted the liberty to take recourse to Rule 107 for initiating fresh auction proceedings. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the direction given by respondent No. 3 in clauses 2, 3 and 4 in the operative part of the impugned judgment. 54. In the light of the about, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition so as to cause interference in the impugned judgment in my writ jurisdiction to the extent as observed hereinabove. 55. Writ Petition No.1461 of 2013 is, therefore, devoid of merits and is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. 54. In the light of the about, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition so as to cause interference in the impugned judgment in my writ jurisdiction to the extent as observed hereinabove. 55. Writ Petition No.1461 of 2013 is, therefore, devoid of merits and is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs. 56. After the pronouncement of this judgment, the petitioner Bank has made a request to the extent of Writ Petition No.1461 of 2013, that the judgment pronounced today, be stayed for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to approach the Honourable Supreme Court. 57. Shri Thombre, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 prays that the amount deposited by the petitioner in this Court, which is the amount that he had to deposit with the Sale Officer as being the highest and successful bidder, be allowed to be withdrawn along with accrued interest. 58. In the light of the request of the petitioner, the effect, execution and operation of the judgment pronounced today, to the extent of Writ Petition No. 1461 of 2013, is stayed for a period of four weeks from today.