IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24915 of 2003 Between: Smt.V.Seetha, W/o. Subba Rao, R/o.S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Co-operative Officer, Secunderabad Division Near Ajantha Gate, Exhibition Grounds, Hyderabad. 2 The Sale Officer Cum-Co-operative Sub Registrar- Cum-Arbitrator, Sri Md. Nazeeb Ashraf, Sai Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Khairtabad, Hyderabad-4. 3 Sai Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Rep. by the Chairman Khairtabad, Hyderabad -4. .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a writ, direction or orders more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of attachment issued and effected by the Respondent No.2 Dt: 20-9-2003 in E.P.No.258/03-J1A on the file of the Respondent No.1; as ultra vires without jurisdiction, void and violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.NARENDER RAJ Counsel for the Respondent : MR.P.R.PRASAD FOR R GP FOR COOPERATION FOR R1 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the order of the attachment issued by the second respondent dated 20.09.2003 in E.P.No.258 of 2003-J1A under Rule 52 (iii) (d) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules (for short ‘the Rules), as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. At the instance of the third respondent-Bank, the first respondent passed an award under Section 62 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act. In pursuance of that, the second respondent issued a notice under Rule 52 (iii) (d) of the Rules on 20.09.2003. The impugned notice is only a consequential of the award passed by the first respondent making the petitioner liable to pay the amount of Rs.21,70,902.50 with interest and costs. The petitioner without challenging the said award only challenged the notice under Rule 52 of the Rules. So long as the award of the first respondent remains valid, the notice under Rule 52 cannot be challenged unless the notice itself is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned notice, as the award of the first respondent is continuing to be in force. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal against the award passed by the first respondent, dated 08.01.2003, which is provided under the provisions of the Act. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 18.02.2008 Isn ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Divisional Co-operative Officer, Secunderabad Division Near Ajantha Gate, Exhibition Grounds, Hyderabad. 2 The Sale Officer Cum-Co-operative Sub Registrar- Cum-Arbitrator, Sri Md. Nazeeb Ashraf, Sai Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Khairtabad, Hyderabad-4. 3 The Chairman, Sai Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Khairtabad, Hyderabad -4. 4. 2 CCs to G.P. for Cooperation 5. 2 CD copies