HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.1707 of 2011 Date : 17-2-2011 Between : Gandam Venkataswamy Naidu .. Petitioner And The District Co-operative Officer, West Godavari District, Eluru and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri K.Chidambaram Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : A.G.P. for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.3: Smt.Bobba Vijayalakshmi The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notice dated 30-12-2010, issued in Form No.9 under Rule 52(11)(e) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, by respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner, former President of respondent No.3- Society, suffered a surcharge order under Section 60 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. The said surcharge order has attained finality. Out of the outstanding amount, a sum Rs.10,82,989/- was stated to have been realized from the petitioner. As there was still further due from the petitioner, execution proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.6819/2008 in this court which was disposed of on 27-9-2010 whereby this Court while observing that the sale notice should be preceded by a demand notice and that as such a demand notice was not issued to the petitioner, set-aside the sale notice and left the respondents free to initiate fresh proceedings after following due process of law. Thereafter, the impugned Form No.9 notice has been issued for sale of the petitioner’s properties. The ground on which the impugned order has been challenged is that the direction issued by this court to issue a demand notice has not been complied with and that the properties were again sought to be sold without issuing a demand notice. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2, it is inter alia stated that the demand notice forwarded by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 was sought to be served on the petitioner in Form No.6 dated 9- 12-2010 and that as the petitioner was continuously absent, the same was affixed on the door of his residence on 15-12- 2010 in the presence of the Village Secretary, the Director and the Secretary of respondent No.3-Society. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the above averments. The petitioner has not denied the fact that he was absent in his house continuously as alleged in the counter affidavit. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the mode of service of notice through affixture in view of non-availability of the petitioner at his residence. As such, the procedure followed by the respondents cannot be stated to suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this court. At the hearing, it is submitted that the sale was not held in pursuance of the impugned notice in view of filing of the Writ Petition by the petitioner. In the light of this fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that his client may make a representation to respondent No.2. The petitioner is left free to make such a representation. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.2088/2011 is dismissed as infructuous. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 17-2-2011 AM