THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22728 of 2010 Date:13.09.2010 Between: Mekala Subbarao. ..... Petitioner AND The District Cooperative Officer, akinada, and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K. Venkatesh Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Government Pleader for Cooperation Counsel for Respondent No.4: --. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the auction notice dated 19.08.2010 issued by respondent No.2 proposing to conduct auction on 20.09.2010 in respect of the petitioner’s house property bearing door No.89-6-23 situated at Morampudi Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. I have heard Sri K. Venkatesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. The dispute raised by the petitioner pertains to his liability to pay the amount determined under the surcharge order. As the previous sale notice issued for recovery of certain amount became abortive, respondent No.2 has issued a fresh sale notification dated 19.08.2010 fixing 20.09.2010 as the date of public auction. In the said notice, a sum of Rs.3,03,387/- is shown as due from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, while his liability was earlier fixed at Rs.1,88,965/-, a sum of Rs.88,550/- was already recovered from his salary and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid by him by way of cash. The petitioner has thus pleaded that the present outstanding liability is only Rs.75,415/- and that the respondents are not justified in not taking into consideration the amounts already recovered and also in seeking to recover the entire amount which was fixed as joint and several liability on the petitioner and two other employees. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation, however, submitted that as the liability was joint and several, option is available to the respondents to proceed against any one of the judgment debtors. A perusal of the impugned auction notice shows that if any person has objection against the proposed auction, he is entitled to file his objections under Rule 52 (12) and (13) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964. Inasmuch as an opportunity is provided to the petitioner in terms of the above statutory Rule, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for adjudicating the same on merits. The petitioner is permitted to make an appropriate representation before respondent No.2. As the petitioner has admitted his liability of Rs.75,415/-, he shall pay the same and submit proof of such payment along with the representation on or before 20.09.2010. If such representation along with proof of payment is received by respondent No.2, he shall not proceed with the auction till he considers and disposes of the representation of the petitioner. The decision on the representation shall be communicated to the petitioner before seeking to proceed further towards recovery of further dues, if any, from the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.28987 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th September, 2010 Note: Issue CC in four days. (B/o) GHN