THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 16179 of 2007 Date: 11.02.2008 Between: S.K. Umar. ..... PETITIONER AND The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Secretary to Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 16179 of 2007 Order: This writ petition is filed seeking to direct the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner to settle the dues by way of one time settlement by considering the representation dated 02.07.2007, and also to declare that the Certificate in Case No. 57/2001-2002, dated 30.01.2002, issued under Section 71 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), and the consequential notice of sale in E.P. No. 83/2003-2004, issued under Rule 52(11)(e) of the Act, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1964 and the rules made thereunder. The case of the petitioner is that he availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the 2nd respondent-Society through the 3rd respondent-Society in the year 1998 for the purpose of construction of a residential house. The petitioner states that so far he repaid an amount of Rs.1,07,000/-, but as he sustained heavy loss in agriculture due to severe drought conditions that prevailed in his region, he was irregular in payment of loan instalments. While so, the 5th respondent has issued certificate under Section 71 of the Act directing him to pay an amount of Rs.47,802/- as arrears to the Society, and as he could not repay the same, the 4th respondent issued notice of sale of the mortgaged property under Rule 52(11)(e) of the Act claiming an amount of Rs.2,01,840/-. Subsequently, he repaid an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 13.03.2007 and Rs.10,000/- on 14.03.2007, and since he remitted an amount of Rs.20,000/-, the proposed auction was stopped. He further states that on 02.07.2007 he made a representation to the 2nd respondent to consider his case for one time settlement, but the respondents, without considering the said request, are again contemplating to auction his property. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Even though notice before admission was ordered by this Court on 30.07.2007 and interim stay granted, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents so far. When the matter is taken up for admission, learned counsel for the respondent-Society, on instructions, submits that there is no such scheme available in the respondent-Society to settle the loan amount taken by the petitioner under one time settlement. He further submits that as against the Certificate issued under Section 71 of the Act and the consequential notice of sale in E.P. No. 83/2003-2004, issued under Rule 52(11)(e) of the Act, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Co-operative Tribunal, but the petitioner without availing the said remedy has filed this writ petition, and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-Society. The questions as to whether the petitioner has paid the entire loan amount and whether the rate of interest claimed by the respondent- Society is very high, what is the rate of interest they have to charge, are all disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the loan transaction is out of a loan agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-Society, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot compel the respondent-Society to accept the offer made by the petitioner for one time settlement, more so when it is the case of the respondent-Society that there is no such scheme in operation in their Society. The remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Co-operative Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedies available to him under law. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to settle the matter under One Time Settlement. It is for the respondent-Bank to consider such a request, and this order, however, shall not preclude the respondent- Society, from considering the request of the petitioner, if they so please. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 11.02.2008 Nsr