IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4699 of 2005 Between: Relangi Kanka Raju S/o. Ayyanna R/o. Ramagundum Street, Palakol, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2 The Palakol Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., No. 123, Palakol, West Godavari District rep. by its Person-in-charge. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.JANARDHAN RAO FOR MR K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for respondent No.2: MR POLISETTY RADHAKRISHNA The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside sale notice dated 07-01-2005 issued in Form No.9 by respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 71 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and Rule 52 of the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner obtained a loan from respondent No.2- Cooperative Bank by mortgaging his residential house bearing door No.41-2-13 situated at Ramagundum street, Palakol, West Godavari District. The impugned notice has been issued to recover the outstanding loan amount by way of sale of the mortgaged property. Though the petitioner questioned the said notice on multiple grounds, at the hearing, Sri M.Janardhan Rao, learned counsel representing Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the sale notice issued without respondent No.2 obtaining a certificate under Section 71 of the Act is invalid and unenforceable. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondent No.2, it is categorically averred that as the loan account of the petitioner became overdue, respondent No.2 raised a dispute before the Arbitrator i.e., Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bhimavaram and that he passed Award No.215/2002- 2003 dated 24-06-2002, for an amount of Rs.4,15,047/- with interest, after issuing notice to the petitioner. It is also stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the said award was communicated to the petitioner. In the reply-aﬃdavit, the petitioner merely denied the allegation in the counter-aﬃdavit that the award was passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies after issuing notice to him. The petitioner has not speciﬁcally denied the fact that an award was passed. If he is aggrieved by the award, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, it would have been open to him to question the said award. Admittedly, he did not do so. Where an award has been passed under Section 61 of the Act, the decree holder is entitled to recover the amount covered by the said award in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 71(1) of the Act, which is reproduced herein below- 71. Recovery of debts:- (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force and without prejudice to any other mode of recovery which is being taken or may be taken, the Registrar may, on the application made by a society or ﬁnancing bank or federal society as the case may be, for the recovery of arrears of any sum advanced to any of its members and on furnishing a statement of accounts in respect of the arrears and after making such inquiry as he deems ﬁt issue a certiﬁcate for the recovery of the amount stated therein to be due as arrears.” A reading of the above reproduced provision shows that it contains a non-obstante clause and it enables the society or ﬁnancing bank or federal society to approach the Registrar for issuing of a certiﬁcate for recovery of the amount stated in the application to be due as arrears on furnishing a statement. The said provision further provides that the mode of recovery contained therein is without prejudice to any other mode of recovery. In my considered view, the instant case, where the outstanding amount from the petitioner is sought to be recovered through the process of execution of an award, does not fall within the above mentioned provision. On the other hand, the action initiated by respondent No.2 falls within the expression “any other mode of recovery” mentioned in Section 71 of the Act. In this view of the matter, non-obtaining of certiﬁcate by respondent No.2 does not prevent it from recovering the arrears in execution of an award passed in its favour by the competent authority. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested for permitting his client to pay the balance outstanding amount within a reasonable time. Having considered his request, the petitioner is given three (3) months’ time from today to pay the entire outstanding amount, failing which respondent No.2 shall be free to execute the award. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 27th August, 2008 vrn