IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4775 of 2005 Between: 1 Sri Raza Ali S/o. Mahmood Ali, R/o. House No. 17-4-326, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Inayath Ali, S/o. Raza Ali, R/o. House No. 17-4-326, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Vilayat Ali, S/o. Raza Ali R/o. House No. 17-4-326, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Deputy Registrar/ Arbitrator, The Chairman, Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd., Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 2 The Charminar Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Recovery Manager (SPA) Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 3 The Sale Officer, Office of the Charminar Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd., Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue rule nisi calling for the records leading up to and inclusive of the notice of sale of immovable property issued by the 3rd respondent herein bearing E.P.No. 12/2002 dt. 5-2-2005, in pursuance of the judgment made in C.T.A.No.29/2002 on the ﬁle of the A.P. Co- op. Tribunal (Dist. Judge) Hyderabad, dt. 23-2-2005 and quash the sale notice issued by the third respondent herein dt. 5-2- 2005 as well as the judgment made in C.T.A.No. 29/2002 dt. 23- 2-2005 on the ﬁle of the A.P. Co-op. Tribunal (Dt. Judge), Hyderabad, by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari; and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR SYED SHAREEF AHMED (not present) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION FOR R1 SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR FOR R2 & R3 The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4775 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash sale notice, dated 05.02.2005, in E.P.No.12/2002 issued by respondent No.3, and judgment, dated 23.02.2005, in C.T.A.No.29/2002 of the A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record. 3. Petitioner No.1 obtained loan from Respondent No.2- Bank. As he committed default in repayment of the loan amount, a dispute was raised before respondent No.1 under Section 61 read with 62 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). After contest, respondent No.1 passed award for a sum of Rs.86,883/-together with interest at 21% and other incidental charges till the date of realization. Questioning the said award, the petitioner ﬁled C.T.A.No.29/2002 before the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The said appeal, after hearing, was dismissed, by order dated 23.02.2005. While the appeal before the Tribunal was pending, the impugned sale notice was issued proposing to sell the petitioners’ property for recovery of the amount due from them. The present writ petition is ﬁled questioning the said sale notice and the judgment of the Tribunal. 4. In the aﬃdavit, the petitioners raised three grounds namely; (1) that whether the reference made under Section 74(2) of the Act by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 is maintainable? (2) whether the circular issued by Reserve Bank of India (R.B.I.) can unilaterally be applied to the petitioners in the absence of any variation in the contract entered into between the petitioners and respondent No.2-Bank? and (3) whether the sale notice, dated 05.02.2005, issued by respondent No.3 even before the Tribunal passed order on 23.02.2005 is sustainable? 5. As regards the ﬁrst question, a perusal of the award passed by respondent No.1 shows that he entertained the dispute under Section 61 read with 62(2) of the Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that the dispute was referred under Section 74(2) of the Act is solely misconceived. 6. As regards the question as to whether the rate of interest enhanced by the R.B.I over and above the contractual rate of interest can be charged to and recovered from the petitioners, in its order, the Tribunal held that as per the terms of the agreement between the petitioners and respondent No.2, the petitioners are liable to pay the rate of interest as per the R.B.I directions. This ﬁnding is not controverted by the petitioners. Hence, I do not find any substance in this contention as well. 7. With regard to the third contention, the same can be referred only to be rejected because it is not the case of the petitioners that the Tribunal granted stay of further proceedings in pursuance of the award of respondent No.1. Hence, there was no impediment for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to recover the award amount by sale of the property of the petitioners. 8. On a careful consideration of the impugned sale notice issued by respondent No.3 and the judgment of the Tribunal, I am of the view that they do not suﬀer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 26.08.2008 v v