JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J —This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the auction notice dated 15.12.2017 pursuant to which, the property mortgaged by the petitioner with the respondent - bank has been auctioned on 24.1.2018. 2. The petitioner has prayed that the respondent - bank be directed that prior to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner, proper opportunity be provided to him in accordance with the Rules. It is also prayed that the revisional authority be directed to decide the case of the petitioner as per the provisions of law. It is further prayed that the respondent - bank be directed to provide benefit of OTS Scheme to the petitioner launched by the respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner advanced a loan of Rs.15 lac on 29.2.2012 from the respondent - bank and in lieu thereof a plot No.6/222 situated near the Ware-house, Anoopgarh Mandi was mortgaged with the respondent - Bank. As per the own case of the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to pay the installments as per the schedule and, therefore, the house mortgaged by the petitioner with the respondent - Bank was put to auction vide notice dated 15.12.2017. In the said notice, the date of auction was fixed as 24.1.2018 and on that date, the property mortgaged by the petitioner was sold to the auction purchaser for an amount of Rs.27 lac. Thereafter, the respondent - Bank issued a notice to the petitioner on 25.1.2018 asking him to deposit an amount of Rs.21, 18, 501.00/- by 23.2.2018, otherwise the Bank will execute registered sale deed in favour of the highest bidder. 4. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent - Bank has committed serious illegality in auctioning the property of the petitioner. It is argued that in the auction notice dated 15.12.2017 (Annexure/1), the bank has mentioned that the agricultural land will be auctioned whereas, the description of the residential house of the petitioner has been given. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent - Bank has committed serious illegality in auctioning the property of the petitioner. It is argued that in the auction notice dated 15.12.2017 (Annexure/1), the bank has mentioned that the agricultural land will be auctioned whereas, the description of the residential house of the petitioner has been given. It is also contended that as per Rule 94(11)(e) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003 (for short " the Rules of 2003"), the bank was required to issue proclamation of sale at least 30 days before the date fixed for the sale of the property, however, in the present case, the auction notice was issued on 15.12.2017 whereas, the proclamation of sale was issued on 4.12.2017 and, as such, it is clear that the mandatory provision of the Rules of 2003 has been violated. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. It is true that in the auction notice dated 15.12.2017, the bank has mentioned auction of the agricultural land, but the description of the property, which is mortgaged with the bank, is mentioned as Plot No.6/222 situated near the Ware-house, Anoopgarh Mandi. It is not in dispute that the property of the petitioner mentioned in the auction notice was only mortgaged with the respondent - Bank, hence, even if it is mentioned in the notice that the agricultural lands are going to be auctioned, it will make no difference because the property which was mortgaged with the Bank was only put to auction. 8. The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the respondent - Bank has violated the mandatory provision of the Rules of 2003 is also not acceptable because the said provision provides that proclamation of sale shall be published at least 30 days before the date fixed for the sale and in the present case, proclamation of sale was issued on 4.12.2018 whereas, the property was sold on 24.1.2018 and, as such, there is no dispute that proclamation of sale was issued 30 days before the date fixed for sale. 9. 9. Otherwise also, I do not find any merit in this writ petition because against the auction proceedings, the petitioner has already preferred a revision petition in the Court of Additional Registrar (Appeals), Co-operative Societies, Jodhpur and the same is pending consideration, therefore, no case for interference is made out by this Court in this writ petition. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.