IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8793 of 2001 Between: 1 S. Krishna Murthy S/o S. Narasimulu R/o Kukatpally Housing Board Colony, Hyderabad. 2 M. Pradeep Kumar S/o Late M. Neelakantam R/o Santoshnagar, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. C.Bramaramba W/o Shravan Kumar R/o Baghlingampally, Hyderabad. 4 Syed Badrul Hussaian S/o Syed Abdul Hussain R/o Barkas, Hyderabad. 5 Md. Afsar Khan S/o Md. Mahabub Khan R/o Chowk, Hyderabad. 6 M. Machendarnath S/o Nagabhushanam R/o Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. 7 Smt. G. Pushpavathi W/o Late G. Eshwaraiah R/o Karwan, Hyderabad. 8 Smt. Nalini W/o Late D. Venkateshwara Rao R/o Kukatpally,m Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The A.P.Housing Board Technical Staff Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Hyderabad. 2 The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Karwan Branch, Hyderabad. 3 Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Rep. by it Vice Chairman Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in issuing the Demand Notice and also the consequential proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent herein in O.U. Note MT Loans/CAO/2000- 2001 dated 23-4-2001 illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard Smt.G.Jyothi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Raghuveer Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-society.​ Petitioners, employees of the Housing Board, are all members of the first respondent-society which in turn availed a loan from the second respondent bank. While the controversy in the writ petition includes the question whether petitioners were in fact advanced loans by the third respondent society, it would suffice for the disposal of this writ petition to note that the second respondent bank submitted an application before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for issuance of a certificate enabling the bank to recover the loan amounts, allegedly advanced to the petitioners, from them. In the meanwhile, at the instance of the first respondent-society, the third respondent board initiated action to recover the loan amounts allegedly due by the petitioners to the first and second respondents from the monthly salaries payable to the petitioners herein. Aggrieved thereby this writ petition. This Court passed an interim order staying the proceedings of the third respondent seeking to recover loan amount from the monthly salaries of the petitioners herein. In the absence of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies having issued a certificate under Section 71 of the Act, the third respondent board could not have sought to recover the alleged loan amounts from the petitioners monthly salary at the instance of the first respondent-society. To the extent the third respondent sought to do so, their action is required to be set aside. It is, however, made clear that quashing of the proceedings issued by the third respondent, at the instance of the first respondent, shall not preclude the Registrar of Cooperative Societies from proceeding further with request made by the second respondent for issuance of the certificate under Section 71 of the Cooperative Societies Act. Subject to above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, in the circumstances without costs. ______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 20th February, 2009 SKM