THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13866 of 2006 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner has questioned notice, dated 02.06.2006, issued in E.P.No.64 of 2002-03 under Rule 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964. The petitioner has obtained loan from the second respondent – District Central Cooperative Bank, Kadapa, to a tune of Rs.3,54,750/- for the purpose of purchasing computers. On the ground that the said material was washed away due to heavy floods in the area, when the petitioner has not repaid the instalments as per the agreement, the respondents have issued demand notice in 2004 for payment of an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- towards principal and interest and they have also taken steps to sell the property admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents covered by Survey No.44 situated at Nagarajupeta, Kadapa District. At that time, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.2811 of 2004, which in turn was dismissed in limini, as against which, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.528 of 2004, in which, the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment, dated 19.04.2004, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, directed the second respondent bank to consider the representation of the petitioner for recalculation of the amount due and pass appropriate orders by giving him opportunity of personal hearing. It further directed the respondents therein not to take further steps for recovery till such orders are passed. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that without giving him opportunity of personal hearing in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Appeal No.528 of 2004, the respondents have issued the impugned notice for sale of the property belonged to him to recover the arrears. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amounts shown towards due are not correct and the amounts, which were already paid by the petitioner, were not taken into consideration. Though there is appearance by the second respondent bank, there is no counter-affidavit. There is also no representation, when the matter is called today. In view of the fact that there is no denial of allegation of the petitioner that the respondents have not given any opportunity by issuing notice to him as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.528 of 2004 by its judgment, dated 19.04.2011, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned notice with a direction to the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner for payment of balance amount, if any. However, it is open to the respondents to determine the amount due by the petitioner after giving him opportunity of hearing, and take steps only after deducting the amounts paid by him before and after filing the writ petition, and after communicating to him the due amount. Accordingly, the impugned notice is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with the directions as indicated above. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 31st MARCH, 2011. kvni