IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13457 of 2001 Between: 1 Pulagam Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy S/o Venkata Reddy R/o Kutukuluru, Anaparthy Mandal, E.G. Dist. 2 Pulagam Vijay Buli Reddy S/o Bhaskar Reddy R/o Kutukuluru Village, Anaparthy Mandal, E.G. Dist. 3 Pulagam Srinivas Reddy S/o Venkata Reddy R/o Kutukuluru Village, Anaparthy Mandal, E.G. Dist. 4 Pulagam Satish Reddy S/o Sathi Reddy R/o Kutukuluru Village, Anaparthy Mandal, E.G. Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Senior Inspector/Sales Officer Dist Coo.op.Central Bank Ltd., Kakinada. 2 PAC Credit Society Kutukuluru, Anaparthy Mandal, E.G. Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking coercive steps in collecting the alleged dues from the petitioners without following the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, having issued the Notice under Sec.71 of the said Act and without passing the award as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the Act and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the said notice and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.V.MOHAN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the demand made by the second respondent-society through notice dated 17.05.2001 for payment of Rs.21,920/-, as illegal and arbitrary under Section 71 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 7 of 1964. 2) The first petitioner alleged to have taken a loan of Rs.15,000/- from the second respondent-society in the year 1998 and later he did not repay the same. Therefore, the impugned notice was issued for payment of the said amount. The petitioners contended that subsequent to the receipt of the demand notice in July 2001, the first petitioner paid Rs.15,000/- and he does not know what is the outstanding amount as on today. 3) The petitioners instead of approaching this Court ought to have filed objections, if any, before the second respondent or made a request for furnishing information regarding the details of the amount paid and the amount due to the society. Instead of approaching the second respondent, the petitioners approached this Court, which is premature at the stage of demand notice. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to make an application to the second respondent-society requesting to furnish the details of the payment and the outstanding amount as on this day and on furnishing such information by the second respondent, the petitioners are at liberty either to file their objections, if any, or pay the amount due to the society. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 18.02.2008 Isn ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Senior Inspector/Sales Officer Dist Coo.op.Central Bank Ltd., Kakinada. 2 PAC Credit Society Kutukuluru, Anaparthy Mandal, E.G. Dist. 3. 2 CCs to 4. 2 CD copies