@#@#@#@#@#@#@ HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO:25887 of 2000 DATED: 15-02-2008 Between: 1. V.G.K.Tilak and 11 others ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Govt. of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, Housing, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS @#@#@#@#@#@#@ ORDER: The petitioners availed a loan from the third respondent who was provided bulk amount by the second respondent. They committed default in payment of the loan amounts, therefore, the recovery officer of the second respondent issued notice calling upon the petitioners individually to repay the loan amount and the petitioners are advised that necessary action will be taken in default of the payment of the loan amount. Challenging the same the writ petition has been filed by these writ petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of giving notice asking them to repay the loan amount as bad and illegal. Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.8604 of 2001 passed an order on 04-07-2002 which reads as follows: “It is axiomatic that ordinarily at the stage of notice a writ petition is not maintainable. Further, the petitioners admittedly entered into agreements with HOUSEFED when the loan was released by the former. Clause (8) of the agreement entered into by the petitioners gives a right to the 2nd respondent to recover the default instalments directly from the applicants by invoking the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). Even before the 2nd respondent could initiate proceedings before the appropriate authorities under the Act either under Section 61 or 71 or 101 of the Act, the writ petition is filed and stay is obtained.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents without initiating the proceedings under Section 61 or 71 or 101 of the Act are coercing the petitioners to pay the loan amount. This is denied by the learned Standing Counsel for A.P. House Fed. He submits that only a notice is issued in exercise of the right of the House Fed under clause (8) of the agreement. He also submits that if the petitioners failed to repay the loan amount, the House Fed can recover the same under the Act. Since the petitioners approached this Court on receipt of the notice the petition itself is not maintainable at the stage of notice. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any recovery made or method of recovery, it is always open to them to avail remedy under Section 76 of the Act. In the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.8604 of 2001 and in the light of the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ 15th February, 2008 SKM