HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4957 of 2005 Dated: 05-08-2010 Between: Arkela Yesu Reddy. … Petitioner And The Collector, Medak District & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4957 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is an agriculturist. In the writ petition, he seeks directions by way of Mandamus, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of instructions notified by the Government in Notification No.D3/4804/2004, dated 26.10.2004, issued by the District Collector, Medak, for re-scheduling the loan of the petitioner and he also questions the action of respondents 2 and 3 in taking steps to proceed with the coercive steps taken against him by putting his land for sale, for recovery of the loan amount. The petitioner is a member of the 3rd respondent- Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. He has obtained a loan amount of Rs.86,000/- from the said Society to establish a poultry farm. The loan amount was payable in six instalments from 1994 to 1999. The petitioner has paid only three instalments and defaulted in paying the remaining instalments. On account of default committed by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent-Society has taken steps to recover the loan amount under the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, and proceeded with the execution proceedings, as contemplated under Rule 52 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964. In execution proceedings, the Deputy Registrar has issued the notice in Form No.9, notifying the mortgaged property of the petitioner for sale. At that stage, the petitioner has approached this Court, and this Court granted interim directions on 11th of March 2005, directing the 2nd respondent not to sell the petitioner’s agricultural land, on condition of depositing Rs.15,000/- within a period of six weeks from the date of said order. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that in view of the severe drought conditions, there were failure of crops, as such, he could not pay the loan amount payable to the 3rd respondent-Society. It is stated that by Notification No.D3/4804/2004, dated 26.10.2004, the District Collector has notified 45 Mandals in Medak District, which are adversely affected on account of drought conditions, and ordered to extend the liberalised credit support by re-scheduling the loans. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of such instructions, respondents have not considered for re- scheduling his loan. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner has not filed any representation to the respondents seeking for grant of time for payment of the overdue amounts. However, it is stated that as much as the petitioner has not repaid the loan amount, in the absence of any scheme for settling the overdue amount as one time settlement, steps have been taken to recover the dues by sale of properties, which are mortgaged by him to the respondents by way of security, at the time of grant of loan. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that in identical circumstances, this Court, while disposing of a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.4782 of 2005 and batch, by an order dated 9th of June 2006, directed the respondents therein to consider the claim of petitioners for re-schedulement of loans. In this writ petition, no material is placed before this Court to show that the petitioner has applied at any time for re-schedulement of loan. Even as per counter, the loan amount of Rs.86,000/-, which was obtained by the petitioner, was repayable in six equal instalments and the petitioner has already paid three instalments and committed default in paying the balance amount. As the petitioner is seeking only re-schedulement of loan by extending the benefit of Notification No. D3/4804/2004, dated 26.10.2004, it is a matter to be considered by the authorities, whether such orders will apply to the claim of the petitioner or not. In the absence of any representation from the petitioner, there was no occasion for the respondents to consider for re-schedulement of loan, and further, in view of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4782 of 2005 and batch, dated 9th of June 2006, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation for re-schedulement of loan in terms of the notification, dated 26.10.2004, within a period of six weeks from today, and if any such application is filed, respondents shall consider the same for re-schedulement of loan payable by the petitioner and communicate the decision taken thereon, to the petitioner. It is made clear that if any schemes are notified for waiver of overdue amount, such benefit shall also be extended to the petitioner. Till appropriate decision is taken on the claim of the petitioner and communicated to him, no further steps shall be taken for sale of the land, which is mortgaged against the petitioner’s loan amount. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th August 2010 ajr