THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18321 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the sale notice dated 17.07.2008 issued by the 1st respondent/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, proposing to sell by public auction immoveable properties belonging to the petitioner herein on 25.08.2008 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned notice shows that the same was issued under rule 52(11) of the A.P. Co- operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short, “the Rules”) in execution of decree obtained by the 3rd respondent/Prudential Co-operative Bank against the petitioner for recovery of amounts due from the petitioner. The impugned notice also shows that the property belonging to the petitioner herein was mortgaged in satisfaction of the money due amounting to Rs.1,03,82,132/- together with interest from the petitioner and four others. It is not in dispute that similar sale notice issued under Rule 52(11) of the Rules on 15.03.2008 proposing to conduct auction on 21.04.2008 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.8665 of 2008. This Court while direct ing Rule nisi by order dated 19.04.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.11481 of 2008 granted interim stay of auction subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.30.00 lakhs within a period of eight weeks. Admittedly, the said amount could not be deposited by the petitioner and, consequently, the impugned sale notice was issued proposing to conduct fresh public auction. As a matter of fact, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/Bank under instructions stated that the petitioner herein and other borrowers have been resisting recovery proceedings from time to time and preventing the respondents from proceeding with the Execution Proceedings. Having carefully gone through the material placed before this Court and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not ﬁnd any justiﬁable reason to hold that the impugned action of the respondents is in violation of any of the statutory provisions. That apart, as noticed above, admittedly, at the instance of the petitioner public auction was once stayed by this Court in W.P.No.8665 of 2008 subject to the condition of depositing Rs.30.00 lakhs. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the said condition. In the circumstances, there are no bona ﬁdes on the part of the petitioner and interference by this Court is not warranted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 26.08.2008. Kgr 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 Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18321 of 2008 Between: Pragathi Mathur D/o. Dr. Dhareswari, R/o. 7-1-215/F, Pragathi Nivas,Balkampet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/ Office on Special Duty, The Prudential Cooperative Bank Limited, R.P. Road, Secunderabad. 2 The Senior Inspector/Sale Officer O/o. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, R.P. Road, Secunderabad. 3 The Prudential Cooperative Bank Limited R.P. Road, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Official Liquidator. .....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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandmaus to declare the notice issued under Rule 52(11)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 1964 to the decree holder and defaulter and the proposed auction on 25-8-2008 vide E.P.No. 99/03/PC.B dated 17-7-2008 as illegal, arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to settle the dues of the petitioner by way of One Time Settlement Scheme as per the O.T.S. intimation letter dated 8-11- 2007 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. L. V.S.NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: