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 SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4360 of 2005 Between: Sri Hari Bala Goud, W/o Saya Goud, R/o Burugupalli (V), Siddipet (M), Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary , Department of Coop. Society, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Officer on Special Duty, Special Cadre Dy. Registrar, Medak District Coop. Central, R.R. District HQ Sanga Reddy. 3 Primary Agriculture Coop. Society, Zilla Sahakar Kendra Bank, Sanga Reddy District Hq, Medak District, Rep. by its Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.ABBURI PRASANNA LAKSHMI Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 : GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for respondent No.3: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside notice dated 27-01-2005 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the property of the petitioner is proposed to be auctioned for recovery of the outstanding loan amount of Rs.1,15,920/-, as illegal and arbitrary. The only ground on which the petitioner questioned the impugned notice is that the Government extended time for repayment of the loan amount till 01-04-2009 vide its letter dated 28-10-2004 and that therefore, the coercive steps initiated by respondent No.3 for recovery of the outstanding loan amount by selling the immovable properties of the petitioner admeasuring Acs.13.26 cents is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has not ﬁled the purported proceedings dated 28-10-2004 by which he claimed that time for repayment of the loan amount was extended. However, at the hearing, Smt Abburi Prasanna Laxmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, furnished a copy of communication, which is in Telugu, styled as ‘draft notice’, said to have been given by the Secretary of respondent No.3-Socieity. From a reading of the contents of the said notice, there is nothing to suggest therefrom that the loan granted in favour of the petitioner is rescheduled by extending time for repayment up to 01-04- 2009, as contended by the petitioner. As the petitioner has not disputed his liability for repayment of the loan amount, he is bound to pay the same or allow the respondents to recover it by way of sale of the immovable property. At any rate, the petitioner had the beneﬁt of withholding the loan amount for more than 3 years under the conditional interim order of this Court and he is not entitled to any further relief. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner is permitted to repay the entire outstanding loan amount in four (4) equal monthly installments. The ﬁrst of which shall be paid within one month from today. In default of payment of any of the installments, the respondents shall be free to recover the outstanding loan amount from the petitioner by selling his properties. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 26th August, 2008 vrn