IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7324 OF 2008 Between: K. Srinivasa Rao. … Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad and five others. … Respondents This Court made the following: O R D E R : The petitioner, a member of the partnership firm, M/s.Rajahamsa Granites, Visakhapatnam, assails the action of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam, in putting to sale his property, being the Plot bearing No.1052, LIGA, admeasuring 111.11 sq.yards situated in Survey No.1478, Madhuravada Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, on the ground that the same is in violation of the procedure prescribed in Section 70 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity, the Act of 1964) and Rule 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (for brevity, the Rules of 1964). 2. This Court, by order dated 03-04-2008, granted interim stay of confirmation of the sale of the petitioner’s property. 3. It is not in dispute that M/s.Rajahamsa Granites, Visakhapatnam, having availed loan facilities from the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam, committed default in its repayment which constrained the said Bank to obtain a recovery certificate under Section 71 of the Act of 1964. This certificate is dated 28.09.2001 and specifically names the petitioner along with the other partners of the firm. It is however the complaint of the petitioner that in execution of the said recovery certificate, the proceedings initiated under Rule 52 of the Rules of 1964 did not conform to the procedure prescribed thereunder. Reference is made to the notices issued under Rule 52, wherein only the name of one partner, P.Satyanarayana Raju, finds mention. 4. Perusal of the demand notice issued under Rule 52 (11) reflects that it named only P.Satyanarayana Raju though the enclosures thereto contain the details of the petitioner’s land also. Similar is the situation with the notice of attachment of immovable property and the notice of sale of immovable property issued under Rules 52(11)(d) and 52(11)(e) respectively. There is therefore a clear violation of the procedure prescribed in Rule 52 of the Rules of 1964. 5. Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Bank, however contended that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the recovery certificate dated 28-09-2001 and in the grounds urged in support of the said appeal, the petitioner had specifically contended that the notices issued in the execution proceedings were not served upon him and thereby, the said proceedings would stand vitiated owing to material irregularities. The learned counsel pointed out that the said appeal was dismissed by the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, as the petitioner failed to pay the costs. It is his contention that once the petitioner urged this ground in the appeal filed by him and the said appeal met with failure, he cannot make out a case before this Court on the same ground. Learned counsel further submitted that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner as he was well aware of the proceedings all through. 6. It is however to be noticed that a special procedure is prescribed under the Act of 1964 and the Rules framed thereunder for the purpose of facilitating easy recovery of the monies due to a cooperative society/cooperative financing bank from its members in the event of default of repayment. That being so, the procedure prescribed requires to be adhered to scrupulously. Rule 52 is a self- contained code as to how execution proceedings are to be effected for recovery of the amounts due by bringing to sale the properties of the defaulting member. It would therefore not be open to the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam, to deviate from the said procedure by naming only one of the partners in the statutory notices while proceeding against the properties of all of them. Such a procedure is not contemplated under the rule. The dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal, filed against the recovery certificate, on technical grounds cannot estop him in law from raising the aspect of procedure violations independently. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the execution proceedings initiated by the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner without following the due procedure contemplated under Rule 52 of the A.P Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964. This order shall however not preclude the Bank from initiating execution proceedings afresh against the petitioner in accordance with the prescribed procedure. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs. _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 24-06-2011/kvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7324 OF 2008 (Allowed) June 24, 2011. KVS _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 17-06-2011. KVS/BSB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.270 OF 2009 (Dismissed as withdrawn. No costs) April 30, 2011. KVS/BSB