JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. Incessant and intertwined litigation is the story in the background of the impugned order. 2. The impugned order is common in all the three captioned petitions. Hence the petitions are cognate. What is challenged is order dated 24th June, 2015 passed by Revisional Authority-the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Agricultural and Co-operation Department, in Revision Application No. 135 of 2014 whereby the said authority allowed the Revision and cancelled the auction proceedings held by the Viramgam Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited-the respondent No. 2 in the first Special Civil Application No. 13585 of 2015. 2.1 The petitioner of first petition is one Kanchanben Haribhai Thakkar who was a Partner in the firm named M/s. Laxmi Cotton. The second Special Civil Application No. 14351 of 2015 is by Viramgam Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited which has made the same prayer. The petitioner of third Special Civil Application No. 14516 of 2015 is the purchaser of the auctioned property, which is a partnership firm in the name of LNR Enterprise. This petitioner is also aggrieved by the same order of the Revisional Authority which set aside the auction. 3. The history is a chequered one. One M/s. Laxmi Cotton Trading Company-a partnership firm, had taken loan of Rs.04.00 lakhs from Viramgam Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited. The partnership firm consisted of partners-Shantilal L. Thakkar, Manguben Ratilal Thakkar and Kanchanben Haribhai Thakkar. A Lavad Suit for recovery of loan amount was filed by the Bank which was dismissed on 29th January, 1988 by the Board of Nominees. The appeal of the Bank before the Co-operative Tribunal came to be allowed on 02nd December, 2002, resultantly, a decree came to be passed against the firm and the partners. Special Civil Application No. 1480 of 2003 and thereafter Letters Patent Appeal No. 773 of 2008, as well as Special Leave Petition there against came to be dismissed by this Court and the Apex Court respectively. Consequently the decree passed in Lavad Suit stood confirmed against the said firm and the said partners. 3.1 The aforementioned proceedings of Special Civil Application and Letters Patent Appeal was filed by one Kamlesh Shantilal Thakkar, an heir of Shantilal L. Thakkar, one of the partners. Consequently the decree passed in Lavad Suit stood confirmed against the said firm and the said partners. 3.1 The aforementioned proceedings of Special Civil Application and Letters Patent Appeal was filed by one Kamlesh Shantilal Thakkar, an heir of Shantilal L. Thakkar, one of the partners. It appears that one of the partners abovenamed Shantilal Laljibhai Thakkar had expired, therefore, he was represented by his heirs Nirmalaben Shantilal Thakkar, Binaben Shantilal Thakkar, Dipakbhai Shantilal Thakkar, Sangitaben Shantilal Thakkar and Kamlesh Shantilal Thakkar. It further appears that Manguben Ratilal Thakkar and Kanchanben Haribhai Thakkar, the other two partners, now deceased, were joint owners of Bungalow "Neelkanth", Paldi, Ahmedabad. As the decree was confirmed by the Supreme Court, the Bank applied on 29th September, 2008 to record lien in the revenue record over the said bungalow property. Finally, Entry No. 13551 was passed recording lien of the Bank and the lien of the Bank was certified by the competent authority on 02nd April, 2009 as RTS case came to be dismissed. However, the deceased Manguben and Kamlaben as well as heirs of deceased Shantilal failed to satisfy the decree. 3.2 On 22nd November, 2008 the Recovery Officer gave notice for taking possession of the property. On 06th April, 2009 notice for attachment was given to partnership firm, partners and to the owners of the property. The said notices were challenged by the partnership firm and its partners by filing Revision Application, but the same was dismissed on 19th February, 2010. The petitioner of the first petition Kanchanben Thakkar instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 1468 of 2009 as well as Civil Suit No. 641 of 2011 for specific performance on the basis of Banakhat dated 03rd December, 1981. The plaintiff Kanchanben contended that she was in possession of the property. A lis pendence was got registered by said Kanchanben. 3.3 Recovery Officer once again issued demand notice on 31st January, 2011 as well as attachment notice on 21st April, 2011. Again Revision Application was filed by one Kalpeshbhai Thakkar which was dismissed on 21st March, 2012. A Revision Application was also filed to challenge attachment notice separately, which too came to be dismissed on 05th July, 2011. The Recovery Officer repeated the attachment notice. A symbolic possession of the property was taken by the Recovery Officer on 27th September, 2011 by drawing Panchnama as the physical possession was with said Kanchanben. A Revision Application was also filed to challenge attachment notice separately, which too came to be dismissed on 05th July, 2011. The Recovery Officer repeated the attachment notice. A symbolic possession of the property was taken by the Recovery Officer on 27th September, 2011 by drawing Panchnama as the physical possession was with said Kanchanben. A public notice was published in two Gujarati newspaper regarding taking of symbolic possession by the Recovery Officer. All the partners of the firm were informed on 04th October, 2011 about publication of notice dated 02nd October, 2011. 3.4 On 20th October, 2011 a government registered valuer undertook valuation of the property which was valued at Rs. 80.00 lakhs. The Recovery Officer fixed upset price at Rs. 80.00 lakhs and gave notice for public auction on 25th April, 2011 which was published in two newspapers on the next date. In the auction proceedings, bids were received from three bidders but the auction proceedings were challenged by way of Revision Application No. 554 of 2011 and Revision Application No. 541 of 2011. The challenge was at the instance of Yogesh Ratilal Thakkar-an heir of partner Manguben Ratilal Thakkar and one Bhumika Ghanshyambhai Thakkar-wife of Nishit Yogesh Thakkar. Said Nishit was son of Yogesh Ratilal Thakkar, and grandson of partner Manguben Ratilal Thakkar. 3.5 Those Revision Applications were allowed on 12th January, 2012 and the proceedings of auction were set aside. A notice of fresh auction was given on 19th January, 2012 in the newspapers. As per the notice for auction given, the auction was scheduled to take place on 25th February, 2012. The bids were received from three persons-Bhumika Nishit Thakkar, acting through power of attorney Ghanshyambhai Ramjibhai Thakkar; Mitesh Bipinbhai Thakkar as well as Kanchanben Haribhai Thakkar-petitioner of first petition. This auction was also challenged by said Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar-son of Yogesh Ratilal Thakkar, who is brother of Kanchanben Thakkar, by filing Revision Application No. 38 of 2012. The said Revision was dismissed by the authority on 01st March, 2012. 3.6 The Recovery Officer was required to hold auction within seven days. Therefore notice dated 01st March, 2012 was given to Manguben and other partners including all bidders notifying the auction to take place on 02nd March, 2012. The said Revision was dismissed by the authority on 01st March, 2012. 3.6 The Recovery Officer was required to hold auction within seven days. Therefore notice dated 01st March, 2012 was given to Manguben and other partners including all bidders notifying the auction to take place on 02nd March, 2012. In the said auction which was held on 02nd March, 2012, five persons submitted their bids who are (i) Ghanshyambhai Ramjibhai Thakkar, (ii) Rameshbhai N. Thakkar, (iii) Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar, (iv) Devang N. Thakkar and (v) Natubhai Somabhai Patel. It was claimed by the Bank that respondent No. 1-Manguben was standing outside the place of auction. The highest bid of Kanchanben Thakkar was accepted for Rs. 01.56 crores. Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar gave bid for Rs. 01.24 crores which was not accepted not being the highest. On 06th April, 2012 sale certificate was given to Kanchanben Thakkar in view of she having made the highest bid of Rs. 01.56 crores. The auction held on 02nd March, 2012 was thus ended in favour of Kanchanben Thakkar. A sale deed came to be executed by the Bank in her favour on 31st July, 2012. On 19th September, 2014 Kanchanben sold off the property by registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 14516 of 2015. 3.7 A significant event took place after the finalisation of auction and process of/execution of auction and sale deed by the Bank as above. Said Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar, claiming to be an heir of Manguben Ratilal Thakkar, filed Special Civil Application No. 2880 of 2012 which was dismissed on merits by order of this Court dated 25th July, 2012. Thereafter Letters Patent Appeal No. 1102 of 2012 was also dismissed on 09th October, 2013. In the order dated 25th July, 2012 dismissing the said Special Civil Application No. 2880 of 2012, and consequently upholding the auction held on 02nd March, 2012, this Court dealt with various contentions on merits raised by the petitioner thereof-deceased Manguben Ratilal Thakkar acting through heir Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar. The order aforementioned passed in Special Civil Application was subjected to challenge by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 1102 of 2012, which failed. The findings recorded and conclusions arrived at on merits in those proceedings necessarily inform the present challenge. They also elaboratedly adverted to in the succeeding paragraphs. The order aforementioned passed in Special Civil Application was subjected to challenge by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 1102 of 2012, which failed. The findings recorded and conclusions arrived at on merits in those proceedings necessarily inform the present challenge. They also elaboratedly adverted to in the succeeding paragraphs. 3.8 Thus while rejecting the challenge to the auction dated 02nd March, 2012 the Court negatived the contention that Kanchanben was not in possession, observing that Court Commissioner's Report in the suit filed by the mother of the petitioner established the possession of Kanchanben. On the aspect of locus standi of the petitioner Manguben through heir Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar, the Court held that Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar was not having locus standi as he was not the partner of said M/s. Laxmi Cotton Trading Company, therefore not borrower and could not maintain the proceedings in respect of the auction held by the Bank. It was further recorded and reasoned that wife of the petitioner-Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar participated in the auction to offer Rs. 01.25 crores but could not succeed as highest bidder. It was reasoned that having participated in the auction, the petitioner was estopped from raising a challenge. The Court further observed that the petitioner had been creating hurdles at every stage in the process of Bank recovering dues by somehow and anyhow. The Court found to state, "Thus, it is clear that this litigation is not pursued by the petitioner in good faith". 3.9 A yet another attempt was made even after the aforesaid order in the Special Civil Application and dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal there against by the very petitioner by subjecting the auction dated 02nd March, 2012 to challenge by filing Special Civil Application No. 16275 of 2013. In that one of the prayers was a prayer-in-repeat to set aside the auction. In the said petition, what was sought to be challenged side-by-side was Notification dated 07th February, 2002 which delegated the powers to the Deputy Secretary. The Division Bench dismissed the said Special Civil Application No. 16275 of 2013 to observe and hold finally in Paragraph 41 of the decision that, "On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, thus, find that the petition has no merit so far as the question of vires is concerned. The Division Bench dismissed the said Special Civil Application No. 16275 of 2013 to observe and hold finally in Paragraph 41 of the decision that, "On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, thus, find that the petition has no merit so far as the question of vires is concerned. We make it clear that we have limited our scrutiny to only the question of vires of the relevant provisions of the Act and of the notifications impugned in this application and we have not gone into the merit". 3.10 The auction held on 02nd March, 2012 and subjected to a failed challenge in writ petition and thereafter in Letters Patent Appeal with the findings recorded therein extracted above, once again came to be called in question by deceased Manguben through her another heir by filing Revision Application No. 135 of 2014, in which notice was issued by the Revisional Authority. This time it was not Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar, but one Sudhaben Ratilal Thakkar who came forward to challenge the auction. This proceeding was contested by the Viramgam Mercantile Co-operative Bank contending inter alia that deceased Manguben Thakkar had died leaving behind, her Will dated 01st November, 2006, under which the property in question was not bequeathed to Sudhaben Ratilal Thakkar, therefore she has no locus standi to file the proceedings. Kanchanben also filed reply submitting amongst other aspects that property was further sold to LNR Enterprise-the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 14516 of 2015 on 19th September, 2014. The Revisional Authority passed order setting aside the auction which is the subject matter of challenge. 4. Proceeding to consider the contentions of the parties in respect of the impugned challenge to the order of the Revisional Authority as well as to the legality of the auction dated 02nd March, 2012, learned advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 14516 of 2015, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 13585 of 2015 and learned advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 14516 of 2015, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 13585 of 2015 and learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Shah for the petitioner in the third petition, contended that there was no occasion for the Revisional Authority to proceed to re-look and re-consider the auction dated 02nd March, 2012 which was not only finalised but the challenge thereto had finally rested on merits by virtue of order dated 25th July, 2012 in Special Civil Application No. 2880 of 2012, confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1102 of 2012 by order dated 09th October, 2013. They relied on grounds raised in the memo of their respective petition to submit that the auction was held in accordance with law and rules which was in respect of the dues of the partnership firm, decreed by the competent court and upheld upto the Apex Court. 4.1 On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Masoom Shah for respondent No. 1-Manguben Ratilal Thakkar deceased through Sudhaben Ratilal Thakkar, submitted that rules relating to auction, in particular, holding the auction within seven days, was breached. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Vishvas Shah seriously supported the order of the Revisional Authority. He elaborated his grounds of challenge to the action itself to justify the impugned order. He submitted that there was a breach of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Rules in conducting the auction dated 02nd March, 2012 in as much as seven days notice was not given as contemplated in Rule 119. He further submitted that the property was worth Rs. 02.50 crores which was auctioned for a lesser amount of Rs. 01.56 crores. According to him, the auction was held although the Bank was not in possession and Kanchanben was in possession. In respect to the challenge made to the auction in question in the writ proceedings before this Court, submission of learned advocate for respondent No. 1 was that the last order dated 20th June, 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 16275 of 2013 of the Division Bench before which auction dated 02nd March, 2012 was challenged, did not go into the merits. Learned advocate continued to reason, that therefore the challenge to the auction was permissible before the Revisional Authority on merits. Learned advocate continued to reason, that therefore the challenge to the auction was permissible before the Revisional Authority on merits. He submitted that this was notwithstanding the orders passed in earlier Special Civil Application No. 2880 of 2012. Learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 relied on judgment dated 17th February, 2016 in Ritesh Oil Mills Private Limited v. Dena Bank being Special Civil Application No. 18446 of 2013. 4.2 It is pertinent to notice and refer to the case of the Viramgam Mercantile Co-operative Bank raised in defence in aforementioned Special Civil Application No. 16275 of 2013 which was filed by Manguben Ratilal Thakkar through her heir Sudhaben Ratilal Thakkar. It was contended that name of the petitioners standing in the revenue record did not make her the owner of the property, that Manguben did not die intestate and that she made a Will to leave her properties to three persons, namely Nishit Yogesh Thakkar, Ghanshyam Ratilal Thakkar and Jyostna Sureshbhai Thakkar. In other words, the very heirship of the present petitioner Sudhaben was disputed on the basis of the Will made by deceased Manguben and it was contended further that Manguben did not leave anything for the petitioner in the Will. It was further contended that the petitioner had no right or interest in the property. 4.3 Bank's contention on the basis of the above fact, was that the petitioner-Sudhaben was not entitled to any notice. It was averred in the affidavit thus, "... ... ... It logically follows that if the petitioner has no right or interest in the property in question, she was not entitled to any notice from the respondent No. 2 Bank before the property was auctioned on 2.3.2012. When the petitioner is confronted with Manguben's notarized Will dated 1.11.2006, she comes up with a fantastic story that she was not aware that her mother had made a Will. Manguben died on 25.4.2010. It is reasonable to assume that a person would arrive to claim her share in her mother's property soon after her mother's death. If Manguben died on 25.4.2010, is it possible to believe that the petitioner did not know all this time that her mother had made a Will on 1.11.2006? Manguben died on 25.4.2010. It is reasonable to assume that a person would arrive to claim her share in her mother's property soon after her mother's death. If Manguben died on 25.4.2010, is it possible to believe that the petitioner did not know all this time that her mother had made a Will on 1.11.2006? Till date, the petitioner has not even challenged Manguben's notarized Will dated 1.11.2006 which excludes her altogether......." 4.4 It was further contended in the said affidavit that Bank was not under obligation to give notice to the petitioner as she was excluded from the Will made by deceased Manguben Ratilal Thakkar and that she was aware all alone that Manguben had made a Will and that she was not a legatee. It was contended that when Manguben's ligatee Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar lost before the Division Bench in connection with the property in question as well as to the challenge to the auction, the present petition is set up by the loosers to create hurdles in the way of Bank. 5. It appears from reading of the impugned order of the Revisional Authority that he adopted his own reasoning. Stated in brief, firstly, according to the Revisional Authority, petitioner Sudhaben Ratilal Thakkar was not informed about the auction; she was an heir of Manguben, and therefore, there was a breach of natural justice. Secondly, it was reasoned that the Bank had not followed the procedure in law before carrying out the auction proceedings. In the third place, the Revisional Authority perceived that it could call in question the auction dated 02nd March, 2012 because the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing Special Civil Application No. 16275 of 2013 had not gone into the merits but decided the said petition in respect of the challenge to the vires and the Notification only. 5.1 Whether the Revisional Authority was justified in visiting with the legality of auction dated 02nd March, 2012 which otherwise was already challenged before this Court earlier in Special Civil Application No. 2880 of 2012, is the aspect left to be considered in the later part of this judgment. 5.2 But before adverting to the said no less important aspect, certain contentions sought to be raised by the respondents may be dealt with and disposed of. 5.2 But before adverting to the said no less important aspect, certain contentions sought to be raised by the respondents may be dealt with and disposed of. A contention was raised that in notifying the public auction on 02nd March, 2012, there was a breach of requirement of seven days' notice contemplated in Rule 120 of the Gujarat State Cooperative Societies Rules. This contention is stated to be rejected, once the dates and events preceding to the holding of auction on 02nd March, 2012 are looked at. Revisiting with those dates, the auction previously slated to take place on 25th February, 2012 was not held as Revision Application No. 38 of 2012 was filed by Nishit Yogesh Thakkar. The same was dismissed on 01st March, 2012. The officer concerned gave notice on 01st March, 2012 notifying the auction to be held on 02nd March, 2012 at 03.30 p.m. The parties were informed and five bids were received. Reading Rule 120 and requirement of seven days notice, the same is complied with in the facts of the case. What is contemplated in the said Rule is that where the sale is adjourned for a longer period of seven days, a fresh proclamation shall be made. There was no such eventuality of adjournment beyond seven days. 5.3 The next contention was about fixation of upset price which, according to the respondents, was on lower side. There is no merit in this contention as well. The upset price was got fixed by the government approved valuer at Rs. 80.00 lakhs. The respondent himself quoted Rs. 01.24 crores. The sale was confirmed in favour of Kanchanben for Rs. 01.56 crores. 5.4 The next contention was about non-giving of notice to Sudhaben-respondent No. 1, who had challenged the auction in capacity of heir of Manguben. The background of facts and events recorded hereinabove indicated that there were several rounds of litigation to challenge the auction proceedings at the instance of the heir of Manguben; the heir Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar initiated such proceedings in capacity of heir of Manguben. The averment and the case on behalf of the Bank has been that in the auction held on 02nd March, 2012, respondent No. 1-Sudhaben, heir of deceased Manguben, was present and was standing outside the place where the auction held and therefore, she had a notice of the event of auction. The averment and the case on behalf of the Bank has been that in the auction held on 02nd March, 2012, respondent No. 1-Sudhaben, heir of deceased Manguben, was present and was standing outside the place where the auction held and therefore, she had a notice of the event of auction. Even otherwise, the submission about giving of notice is too far-fetched to be countenanced. The facts showed that they had due notice of the auction. Furthermore, once one of the heirs of deceased partner Manguben, namely Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar, acted as heir and representative of deceased Manguben, and had questioned the auction proceedings, the estate of Manguben was already represented through the said heir. Special Civil Application No. 2880 of 2012 was filed by deceased Manguben through heir Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar. Once one of the heirs had filed proceedings and challenged the subject matter, the estate of the deceased on whose behalf the proceedings were initiated could be said to have been represented. The very challenge to the very subject matter by another heir was in form of Revision Application No. 135 of 2014, which culminated into the impugned order. The estate of Manguben having already been represented, contention ill-lies in the mouth of Sudhaben again initiating the proceedings as another heir of Manguben. 5.5 All the aforesaid contentions dealt with in the preceding paragraphs, do not survive as such to be agitated by the respondent and were prohibited from being raised in view of the decision of this Court in abovementioned Special Civil Application No. 2880 of 2012 confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1102 of 2012. It is both worthwhile and clinching to refer to the findings in those proceedings in which the same challenge, that is legality and validity of auction dated 02nd March, 2012, was examined by the court on merits, at the instance of one of the other heir of deceased Manguben. 5.5.1 The court viewed that the petitioner had no locus standi. "15.0 From the facts it is clear that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the auction sale proceedings carried out by the respondent Bank. The petitioner has not paid any amount to the Bank. The borrower was M/s. Laxmi Cotton Trading Company and the borrower has lost in the Lavad Suit filed by the bank right upto the Supreme Court. The petitioner has not paid any amount to the Bank. The borrower was M/s. Laxmi Cotton Trading Company and the borrower has lost in the Lavad Suit filed by the bank right upto the Supreme Court. It is therefore, clear that the petitioner with mala fide intention goes on instituting one or the other litigation over the borrower's property over which the respondent Bank has a charge. It is also evident that the property has fetched Rs. 1. 56 crores and the petitioner who was present at the auction did not offer a higher price. In fact the wife of the petitioner participated in the auction and offered only Rs. 1. 24 crores. Nothing presented the petitioner from offering the alleged higher price. Having participated in the auction it is not now open to the petitioner to contend otherwise." 5.5.2 In respect of contention about possession, it was held, "14.0 As far as contention of the petitioner that Kanchanben is not in possession is concerned, the Court Commissioner's report was filed in the year 2009 in the suit filed by the mother of the petitioner ultimately established the possession. The statement which has been made by the petitioner is contrary to the evidence on record. Even if it is not taken as suppression of material facts, by not disclosing the true fact the equity is not in favour of the petitioner." 5.5.3 The recovery of public money was successful but unfortunately thwarted. "17.0 It is required to be noted that the public money is involved in the matter. The dispute is between the two partners and they are not in possession. If ultimately the petitioner has a right against co-owner, it is always open to him to file a suit and a writ petition is not maintainable. The public money is blocked for a long unreasonable period of 25 years. 18.0 It is also pointed out that at every stage in the Bank's way, the petitioner is creating hurdles to stay the auction sale of the property in question. One or the other application is moved before respondent No. 1 to postpone and delay the matter. The public money is blocked for a long unreasonable period of 25 years. 18.0 It is also pointed out that at every stage in the Bank's way, the petitioner is creating hurdles to stay the auction sale of the property in question. One or the other application is moved before respondent No. 1 to postpone and delay the matter. Thus, it is clear that this litigation is not pursued by the petitioner in good faith." 5.5.4 The Court stated, "19.0 Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dhananjay Malik and others versus State of Uttranchal and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171 wherein it is held that having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur, they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion-If they had any valid objection, they should have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Manish Kumar Shahi versus State of Bihar and others reported in 2010 (12) SCC 576 wherein also it is held that a candidate challenging recruitment process after having himself taken part in it, is not maintainable. On the very same point he has relied upon a decision in the case of Amlan Jyoti Borooah versus State of Assam and others reported in 2009 (2) SCC 227. 20.0 In view of the aforesaid decisions also I am of the view that the petitioner has no locus in the matter and for the very same reason this petition cannot be entertained. 22.0 In the premises aforesaid, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, stands vacated. No order as to costs. 23.0 At this stage a request is made to extent the interim relief. In view of the fact that public money is involved and other attending circumstances the request is rejected." 5.6 Against the above judgment, a Letters Patent Appeal was preferred. While dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1102 of 2012 against the order dated 25th July, 2012, the Division Bench observed thus, "5. ... ... ... The Respondent No. 4 in the petition, Kanchanben Haribhai Thakkar, has purchased the property in the auction. While dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1102 of 2012 against the order dated 25th July, 2012, the Division Bench observed thus, "5. ... ... ... The Respondent No. 4 in the petition, Kanchanben Haribhai Thakkar, has purchased the property in the auction. The Court taking into consideration the aforesaid submission and taking into consideration the fact that if any higher amount is offered by the appellant, petitioner, that will be in the interest of respondent No. 2-Bank, passed the following order on 22nd August, 2013: "1. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel for Mr. Chirag Patel for the appellant states that he has instruction from his client, who is present in the Court, to state before the Court that he will deposit an amount of Rs. 1,56,00,000/- with the Registry of this Court within one month from today. To test the bona fides of the appellant and to see that he does not litigate without depositing such amount before the Court, it is deemed proper that the appellant be permitted to deposit this amount. Matter is adjourned to 23.9.2013. Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till then." 6. On 23rd September, 2013, the matter was adjourned to 26th September, 2013. On 26th September, 2013, the learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel for Mr. Chirag Patel for the appellant submitted that his client is not able to arrange for the amount (Rs.1,56,00,000/-) as his family is in financial difficulties. The Court passed the following order on 26th September, 2013. 1. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel for Mr. Chirag Patel for the appellant tenders an additional affidavit of one Nishith Thakkar son of Yogeshbhai Thakkar. It is stated in the affidavit that deponent is not able to arrange for a deposit of Rs. 1,56,00,000/- within one month as his family is going through some financial crisis. However, deponent has shown his willingness to deposit Rs. 50,00,000/- within 24 hours to show his bona fide. 2. Deponent shall deposit the said amount on or before 27.9.2013. Matter be kept on 01.10.2013. Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till then." 7. On 1.10.2013, the matter was adjourned to 3rd October, 2013. On 3rd October, 2013, the matter was adjourned to 8th October, 2013. On 8th October, 2013, it was adjourned to 9th October, 2013. On 9th October, 2013, Mr. Amit Panchal, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Matter be kept on 01.10.2013. Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till then." 7. On 1.10.2013, the matter was adjourned to 3rd October, 2013. On 3rd October, 2013, the matter was adjourned to 8th October, 2013. On 8th October, 2013, it was adjourned to 9th October, 2013. On 9th October, 2013, Mr. Amit Panchal, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Dipak R. Dave, for respondent No. 4 submitted that appellant, original petitioner is the one who had participated in the auction and had offered an amount of Rs. 1,24,00,000/-. Having lost in the auction, filed the petition and having lost in the petition, has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal and in the present Letters Patent Appeal, he has obtained interim relief; whereby, the Bank is not able to enjoy the fruits of the auction sale and respondent No. 4 who has paid an amount of Rs. 1,56,00,000/- for the property is kept away from the said property since 2nd March, 2012 (the auction was held on 2nd March, 2013). 8. In view of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondent No. 4, the Court inquired from the learned advocate for the appellant whether the aforesaid facts are true and the appellant, original petitioner, had participated in the auction or not. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the present appellant had not participated in the auction at all and it was the wife of the present appellant, who participated, and that too on behalf of her father-in-law. 9. To this, learned advocate for respondent No. 4 submitted that the wife of the present appellant is the partner in the business of her father-in-law and that being so, the appellant, his wife and her father-in-law (father of the appellant) are all one and the same. The Court again inquired from Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant whether this is true. To this, learned advocate, Mr. B.S. Patel replied that, 'he has not taken instructions from his client about his wife and she being a partner in a business of her father-in-law'. The learned advocate further submitted that she may or may not be a partner in the business. It was again inquired from the learned advocate for the appellant whether the appellant knows about the fact that his wife is a partner in the business of her father-in-law. Learned advocate Mr. The learned advocate further submitted that she may or may not be a partner in the business. It was again inquired from the learned advocate for the appellant whether the appellant knows about the fact that his wife is a partner in the business of her father-in-law. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel did not reply the question but submitted that she must be a partner in the business of father-in-law. 10. The aforesaid facts make it clear that the appellant has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as the appellant has not disclosed this important fact that wife of the appellant had participated in the auction on behalf of her father-in-law i.e. the father of the appellant and that she is a partner in the business of her father-in-law. The Court has reason to believe that the appellant cannot be ignorant about these facts. Only on this short ground that the appellant has misled this Court and misrepresented the material facts having bearing on the question involved in the matter, before the Court to create an impression in the mind of the Court that the property is sold by the Bank in auction for a meager amount matter deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 11. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The Registry is directed to return the amount deposited by the appellant (Rs. 50,00,000/-) by account payee cheque by handing over the same to the learned advocate for the appellant on or before 30th October, 2013." 5.6.1 The above facts noted by the Division Bench while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, reveal two aspects. Firstly, despite opportunity being given to Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar, an heir of Manguben Ratilal Thakkar, to match the price of Rs. 01.56 crores and deposit the same, he failed to do the same. Secondly, wife of Nishit Yogesh Thakkar participated in the auction through father-in-law of Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar and that both were partners in one business. In this view, learned advocate for the petitioners herein contended that Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar had virtually involved himself and participated indirectly in the auction. 01.56 crores and deposit the same, he failed to do the same. Secondly, wife of Nishit Yogesh Thakkar participated in the auction through father-in-law of Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar and that both were partners in one business. In this view, learned advocate for the petitioners herein contended that Nishit Yogeshbhai Thakkar had virtually involved himself and participated indirectly in the auction. 5.6.2 In paragraph 12 of the letters patent judgment, the Division Bench leaned to accept the submission that the appellant was applying the tactics to be successful to see that the money borrowed by the firm was not returned to the Bank and even auction money did not reach the Bank and the conduct of the appellant so manifested. The Court observed in paragraph 10 and dismissed the appeal. "10. The aforesaid facts make it clear that the appellant has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as the appellant has not disclosed this important fact that wife of the appellant had participated in the auction on behalf of her father-in-law i.e. the father of the appellant and that she is a partner in the business of her father-in-law. The Court has reason to believe that the appellant cannot be ignorant about these facts. Only on this short ground that the appellant has misled this Court and misrepresented the material facts having bearing on the question involved in the matter, before the Court to create an impression in the mind of the Court that the property is sold by the Bank in auction for a meager amount matter deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 11. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The Registry is directed to return the amount deposited by the appellant (Rs. 50,00,000) by account payee cheque by handing over the same to the learned advocate for the appellant on or before 30th October, 2013." 5.7 Thus it is clear from the above that challenge to the auction dated 02nd March, 2012 was negatived on merits as per the findings recorded by this Court in the aforesaid Special Civil Application, judgment of which was confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal. The respondent cannot be allowed to re-raise and re-agitate the contention qua auction in question. The respondent cannot be allowed to re-raise and re-agitate the contention qua auction in question. The subsequent filing of Special Civil Application No. 16275 of 2013 wherein while not entertaining the challenge to the vires to certain Sections, the observations of the Division Bench that it had not gone into the merits, could not come to any help for the respondents. It cannot be said by any stretch of logic that order in Special Civil Application No. 16275 of 2013 in any way upset or annul or even diluted in the order in Special Civil Application No. 2880 of 2012 and in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1102 of 2012 and the findings recorded on merits therein. 6. Examining the impugned order by the Revisional Authority in light of the aforesaid facts, it has to be held that it was not permissible for the Revisional Authority to re-consider the challenge to the auction dated 02nd March, 2012 when the challenge had already ended finally on merits before this Court. Going into the question of legality of the auction under the guise of order in Special Civil Application No. 16275 of 2013 was a clear error in the nature of excess of jurisdiction committed by the Revisional Authority, thereby it virtually sat in appeal over the concluded challenge to the auction in question. The submission of learned advocate for the petitioners could not be brushed aside lightly that the Revisional Authority in entering into the legality of the auction and setting aside the same was a contemptuous stance towards the High Court. Even if not treated as contemptuous, the approach of the Revisional Authority was undoubtedly one of deplorably disregarding the judgment of this Court upholding the very auction which could not be countenanced in law in any respect. It was binding to the Revisional Authority and it could not have set aside the auction. 6.1 The decree against the dues of the Bank was passed in the Lavad Suit as back as in the year 2002-03 and as confirmed upto the Supreme Court. All these years the Bank was dragged into litigation to thwart the realisation of money for the Bank. The decree was against the partners of the firm. The litigating parties projecting themselves as heirs of the partners indulged into the litigation virtually misusing the litigative process. 7. All these years the Bank was dragged into litigation to thwart the realisation of money for the Bank. The decree was against the partners of the firm. The litigating parties projecting themselves as heirs of the partners indulged into the litigation virtually misusing the litigative process. 7. All the aforesaid discussion, reasons and considerations readily render the impugned order dated 24th June, 2015 passed by Revisional Authority-the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Agricultural and Cooperation Department, in Revision Application No. 135 of 2014, liable to be set aside. As a result of the foregoing discussion and reasons, the impugned order dated 24th June, 2015 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Application No. 135 of 2014, which is common impugned order in all the three petitions, is hereby set aside. All the three petitions being Special Civil Application Nos. 13585 of 2015, 14351 of 2015 and 14516 of 2015 stand allowed. FURTHER ORDER Learned advocate Mr. Shah, at this stage, requests that the above judgment and order may be stayed for a reasonable period in order to enable the respondent to approach higher forum. This request could not be entertained in view of what is held hereinabove, however learned advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi stated that petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 14516 of 2015 will not transfer the subject matter property which is in his possession, for a period of two weeks, by virtue of the last transaction.