IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.24464 of 2002 Between: Shaik Dada Saheb and three others. ... Petitioners And The General Manager, Warangal District Co-operative Central Bank, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal and another. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B.Mahender Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: None This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in attaching the personal properties of the petitioners in the guise of recovery of loan due by the Nawar Satranji Handloom Weavers’ Co-operative Production & Sales Society Limited, Kesamudram, Warangal District (for short “the Society”), as illegal and unconstitutional. Heard Sri B.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appeared for respondents 1 and 2 despite service of notices on them. The petitioners were members of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Society. Their case is that the Society became unviable and defunct, and, later, it was liquidated in the year 1997. The Society obtained loan of Rs.90,000/- from respondent No.1-Bank in the year 1982-83. The petitioners averred that the said loan was obtained on the strength of the State Government furnishing security to the extent of 90% of the loan amount and the share capital of the Members of the Society to the extent of 10%. The petitioners alleged that though they have not given any personal security or stood as sureties and the loan amount was obtained for the purpose of the Society, the respondents have been harassing the petitioners and forcing them to pay the time barred loan amount. They have further stated that petitioner No.1 got a legal notice issued to respondent No.1, which was acknowledged on 26-11-2002. They further averred that respondent No.2 came to the house of petitioner No.1 on 28-11-2002 and took away one Television, one sofaset and one chair belonging to him in the guise of recovery of the loan amount due from the Society to respondent No.1-Bank. The averments contained in the aﬃdavit referred to above have not been controverted by the respondents. Therefore, the facts pleaded by the petitioners deserve to be accepted. Unless the petitioners stood as sureties or executed a mortgage deed of immovable properties or hypothecated the movables belonging to them to secure the said loan on behalf of the Society, it is not permissible for the respondents to proceed against the personal properties of the petitioners. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. Respondents are restrained from recovering any part of the loan amount due from the Society from the petitioners. --------------------------- --------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:17-10-2008 MNR