HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.16571 of 2003 Date: 03-02-2011 Between: B. Bhaskara Rao … Petitioner And The Joint Registrar of Co-op Societies and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.16571 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking direction by way of Mandamus to declare the notice dated 01-07-2003 issued by the first respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, with a consequential direction to the respondents to settle the loan account of the petitioner under One Time Settlement scheme announced by the respondents. The petitioner availed loan amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the second respondent-bank for the purpose of his business by creating equitable mortgage in respect of the house property bearing No.14-11- 103 situated at Mangalhat, Hyderabad. On the ground that the petitioner defaulted in paying the amounts, the second respondent- bank raised a dispute under Section 61 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘Act’) and obtained award in A.R.C.No.148 of 2000, dated 14-06-2000 for an amount of Rs.3,37,075/-. To execute the said award, steps are taken by the second respondent-bank and when the notice of sale was issued under Rule 52(II)(e) in Form No.9 to the petitioner, who is a defaulter, this writ petition is filed. By order, dated 07-08-2003, this Court granted interim stay of sale on condition of depositing Rs.1,75,000/- within a period of three months. Although the writ petition is of 2003, there is no counter affidavit filed by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that he intends to settle the loan account by way of one time settlement by seeking the benefit of the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.4 Agriculture and Cooperative (Co-op.III) Department, dated 27-02-2003. It is stated that inspite of his application, dated 10-03-2003, which is received by the second respondent-bank, no steps are taken by the respondents and on the other hand they are taking steps for sale of the property as per the notice, dated 01-07-2003. In the absence of any counter affidavit, it is not known whether the loan account of the petitioner is settled or not by this time. But as much as the respondents have obtained award under Section 61 of the Act, it is open to them to take steps to execute the same. At the same time when the respondents have notified certain benefits for settling the loan account by way of one time settlement, it is obligatory on their part to respond to the application filed by the petitioner, dated 10-03- 2003. Keeping such application pending, the respondents cannot proceed with the execution proceedings pursuant to the award obtained by them. In the absence of any counter affidavit filed by the respondents and as the petitioner submitted the application, dated 10- 03-2003, which bears the endorsement in token of receiving such application, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent-bank that if the application filed by the petitioner is not disposed of as on today, the same shall be disposed of within a period of three months from today. It is also made clear that whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefits notified by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 27-02-2003 has to be considered independently by the respondents. Till the consideration of the petitioner’s application and he is communicated on his application, no further steps shall be taken to execute the award obtained by the respondents under Section 61 of the Act. It is also made clear that after disposal of the application of the petitioner, it is open to the respondents to take steps in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J Date: 03-02-2011 YCR