THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16433 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner, who is the President of Dhoolipudi Cooperative Picture Palace, filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings of the third respondent dated 10.07.2002 and the consequential auction notice, as arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, illogical and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequently to direct the respondents to collect only actual balance loan amount of Rs.1,26,000/- by waiving the interest . It is stated that Dhoolipudi Cooperative Picture Palace was registered under the Cooperative Societies Registration Act during 1981, with 12 members and availed loan of Rs.20,000/- from the Cooperative Department and also taken a loan from the first respondent i.e., the Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Film, T.V and Theatre Development Corporation Limited a sum of Rs.2,46,000/- for construction of the theatre. The theatre was opened for exhibition of motion pictures in the year 1981. The petitioner repaid the loan of Rs.20,000/- with interest to the Cooperative Department and an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the first respondent in the year 1983 itself, but due to the unfavourable conditions in the film industry, the balance amount of Rs.1,26,000/- could not be discharged. While so, the first respondent issued proceedings dated 20.07.2001 showing a debit balance of Rs.29,44,464.57 and called upon the petitioner to confirm the balance by return post by signing the duplicate of the said proceedings before 21.08.2001, failing which, it would be treated as the above balance was correct to proceeded further. In response to the above notice, the petitioner made a representation on 20.07.2001 to waive the whole amount of interest accrued and sought permission to repay the balance loan amount of Rs.1,26,000/- only. But, by proceedings No.FDC/Accts/2001-2002/630, dated 29.04.2002, the first respondent confirmed the balance as on 31.03.2002 as Rs.31,81,455=08 ps. On receipt of the above proceedings, the petitioner made another representation on 29.04.2002 to waive the whole interest amount and allow him to repay the balance amount. While so, the third respondent issued the impugned proceedings, enclosing a statement of amounts for recovery of Rs.31,94,645=32 ps, auction notice and Form-1 Notice under Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. The Managing Director of the first respondent Corporation filed a counter-affidavit dated 30.09.2002, which was filed into the Court on 29.10.2002, stating that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.2,46,000/- from the first respondent Corporation for construction of Cinema Hall at Dhulipudi; that the A.P. Scheduled Caste Cooperative Financial Corporation, Hyderabad stood as guarantor for the loan; that the petitioner has repaid an amount of Rs.1,01,010.13 ps for the period from 10.04.1980 to 26.03.1990 and no payment has been made by the petitioner thereafter; that the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.323, GA (I&PR) Department, dated 29.06.1994 introducing a new incentive One Time Settlement Scheme under which simple interest is charged @9% for the first five years and 12% for the remaining period; that the first respondent Corporation has informed about the said scheme to all the defaulters including the petitioner vide letters dated 01.05.1995, 05.03.1997 and 04.08.2000 to make use of the opportunity and to clear the loan under the above scheme; that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity given to him and failed to clear the loan amount; that as per the first respondent’s books of account, the petitioner has to pay Rs.29,44,464.57 ps as on 31.03.2001 and that the first respondent Corporation by letter dated 20.07.2001 requested the petitioner to confirm the balance and the same was followed by the periodical notices as referred to above. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is agreeable to pay the actual balance amount of Rs.1,26,000/- to the first respondent Corporation, by waiving the interest, but the respondents, without considering the same, have issued the impugned proceedings, which is illegal and arbitrary. In para 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the respondents have not taken any action on the similarly situated persons and that by using pick and choose method they are demanding amounts by calculating the interest on the amounts that have been already repaid in the year 1983 itself. Reiterating the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in all other cases, the first respondent corporation waived the interest, but in case of the petitioner interest has not been waived and the respondents are proceeding for auction of the property and the same is liable to be set aside. As can be seen from the material available on record, it appears that no particulars as to the persons in whose favour no action has been taken or interest has been waived, have been furnished in the pleadings. In the absence of any specific pleading to the said effect, this Court cannot accept the said contention. Suffice it to say that, as per G.O.Ms.No.323, dated 29.06.1994, the Government has issued a new incentive One Time Settlement Scheme under which simple interest is charged @9% for the first five years and 12% for the remaining period. But, however, the petitioner has not availed said scheme. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that he is entitled to waiver of interest. In view of the same, the impugned demand notice and the consequential attachment orders under Revenue Recovery Act do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 03.02.2011 va