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 SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4563 of 2005 Between: Siram Govindarajulu s/o.Appa Rao D.No.58-1-14, Market Street, Jagannaikpur, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Kainada Cooperative Buidling Society Limited, (Regd.No.8979) Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The Dy.Registrar Cooperative Societies C/o.The Kakinada Cooperative Buidling Society Ltd, Kakinada E.G.District. 3 The Arbitrator Cum sales Officer in the court of Dy.Registrar Cooperative Societies C/o.The Kakinada Cooperative Building Society Ltd., (Regd.No.8979) Lalomada, E.G.District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:None appeared. Counsel for respondent No.1: MR Josula Bhaskara Rao Counsel for respondents 2 and 3:G.P.FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash proceedings issued under Rule 52 (11) (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short “the Rules”), whereby the property of the petitioner was proposed to be auctioned. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri Josula Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondents 2 and 3 and perused the record. The petitioner obtained loan from respondent No.1 and committed default in repayment of the same. In order to recover the said loan amount, respondent No.1 proposed to auction the properties mentioned in the schedule of the impugned notice on 09-03-2005. The main ground on which the impugned notice is assailed in the writ petition is that the sale notice was served on the petitioner only on 01-03-2005, for holding auction on 09-03-2005, and that therefore, the same does not satisfy the mandatory provision of Rule 52 (11) (e) of the Rules which requires a clear 30 days notice to be given to the decree holder and the judgment debtor. In the counter-aﬃdavit of the President of respondent No.1-Society, it is clearly asserted that the auction notice was issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner, who received the same on 28-01-2005. Respondent No.1 also ﬁled a xerox copy of the notice, which contains the purported signature of the petitioner evincing receipt of notice on 28-01-2005. Even respondent No.2, in paragraph 2 of his counter- aﬃdavit, speciﬁcally averred that the petitioner was served with sale notice on 28-01-2005. The petitioner is not represented by his counsel at the hearing and has not controverted the above mentioned averments contained in the counter-aﬃdavits of respondents 1 and 2 respectively. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the same and I do not ﬁnd any procedural illegality or irregularity in the impugned auction notice. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 26th August, 2008 vrn