IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE THIRD FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.26424 of 2007 Between: Gundavalli Venkanna. … Petitioner And The District Collector, Krishna District and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu. Counsel for the respondents: GP for Co-operation for R.1 to R.3. Smt.Bobba Vijayalakshmi for R.4 & R.5. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Co-operation for respondents 1 to 3; and Smt.Bobba Vijayalakshmi, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. The petitioner obtained loan from respondent No.4-Society. Disputes arose in respect of the loan transactions. While it is the case of respondent No.4 that the petitioner has obtained a fresh loan on 29-6- 2002 after clearing the earlier loan, the petitioner has denied this claim and has maintained that the then Secretary of respondent No.4-Society has fabricated loan transaction and created a fictitious loan document. When Execution Petition was filed by respondent No.4, the petitioner sought for furnishing copies of certain documents, i.e., enquiry report, auditor report, loan dispatch report, loan report and Dispatch Officer’s report. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4 it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner was supplied with final audit report for the year 2002-03, final enquiry report and loan disbursement officer’s report. It is further averred that the remaining two documents sought for by the petitioner are not available with respondent No.4-Society because the then Secretary has not handed over those documents and that disciplinary action was initiated against him. In the light of the respective stands of the parties, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate if respondent No.4 permits the petitioner to inspect the documents available with it, at its seat of office, and if it is found from the records that the remaining two documents sought for by the petitioner are available, respondent No.4 shall furnish copies of the same to the petitioner. If such documents are not available, a written communication in this regard shall be given by respondent No.4 to the petitioner. It is needless to observe that till this process is completed, respondent No.4 will not proceed with the execution proceedings. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:03-2-2011 MNR