IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14344 of 2008 Between: P. Jubeda Khathun W/o. P.Rafeeq Ahmed, R/o. D.No. 1/138-12-25, B.K.Pompanna goud Colony, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Secretary to Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Yemmiganur Cooperative Town Bank Ltd., No.Y-396, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District, rep. by its Chairman. 3 The Yemmiganur Cooperative Town Bank Ltd., No. Y-396, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District, rep. by its Secretary. .....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 Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing notice dated 04.05.2007 under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to give opportunity to the petitioner to settle the due pending with the 3rd respondent Bank by way of One Time Settlement Scheme by waiving the interest as was done in case of similarly situated persons. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.V.S.NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The court made the following: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.14344 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the third respondent-Yemmiganur Cooperative Town Bank Limited, in issuing the notice, dated 04.05.2007, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is arbitrary and illegal. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the third respondent has no power or authority to initiate proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and in case, recovery proceedings are warranted, the third respondent ought to have taken steps under the provisions of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. It is also brought to my notice that an identical issue was considered by this Court in W.P.No.18184 of 2007, and by an order, dated 12.02.2008, the order impugned in that writ petition was set aside granting liberty to proceed under Section 71 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. Sri K.Sita Ram, learned counsel, who accepted notice for the respondents 2 and 3, has not disputed the fact that the petitioner herein is also similarly situated. Accordingly, following the order, dated 12.02.2008, in W.P.No.18184 of 2007, the impugned notice, dated 04.05.2007, is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed granting liberty to the third respondent to initiate fresh proceedings, for recovery of the amounts allegedly due from the petitioner, under Section 71 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. No costs. _________________ 14.07.2008 VGB