IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.3158 of 2001 Between: M.RAJENDER REDDY, S/o. Malla Reddy, R/o. Kalvakuntla Village, Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The SI/SO/Aribitrator of the DCC Bank Limited, Nalgonda. 2 The Special Cadre Deputy Registrar, Officer on Special Duty, DCC Bank Limited, Nalgonda. 3 The Kalvakuntla Primary Agricultural Co.op Society Limited, Rep. by its Secretary, Kalvakuntla Village, Munugonde Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4 The Co.operative Tribunal, Rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, orders, Writ or directions, more particularly a Writ in the nature of CERTIORARI ; (a) Quashing the proceedings dt.20.2.2001 in I.A.No B6/2001of the respondent No.4 Tribunal and to set aside the same. (b) To set aside the proceedings of the respondent NO.2 in Case No.819/99 dt. 19.3.1999 and consequently the execution proceedings in E.P.No.814/LT/99 dt. 18.1.2001. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.3158 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner in this writ petition has alleged that he obtained term loan of Rs.40,795/- from the 3rd respondent Co-operative Society for establishing a poultry farm, but on account of the disease, the birds died which resulted into serious loss and the petitioner could not repay the loan. The petitioner alleged that the 1st respondent had taken up proceedings under Section 71(2) of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act and issued a Certificate of recovery, being case No.819/99, dated 19-03-1999, certifying that the petitioner is due and payable the loan amount of Rs.90,356/- with interest at 18.5% per annum. It is further alleged that there was no prior notice and he was not served with any such proceedings and as such, the Certificate, dated 19-03-1999, is challenged inter alia on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. As per the counter of R-2, the petitioner borrowed long term loan of Rs.1,30,000/- for poultry business with the following breakups, Rs.45,000/- on 31-03-1994, Rs.45,000/- on 13-08-1994 and Rs.40,000/- on 20-01-1995. As per the terms of the loan, the same carries interest at 15% per annum and in the event of default, further 3.5% towards penal interest. It is claimed that the petitioner has not paid any amounts either towards principal or towards interest. It is further alleged that a notice, dated 02-03-1999, was served on the petitioner asking him to appear before the authorities on the date of hearing on 19-03- 1999 and since he was absent on the said date, the impugned order was passed against him on 19-03-1999. It is further alleged that several other notices like attachment of immovable property, notice of sale, etc., were served on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has attached xerox copies of the summons order and subsequent notice as referred to above in the counter affidavit and the original record is also produced before me. A look at the said record shows that summons, dated 02-03-1999, contains two different endorsements. One stating that the addressee is out of station, which is struck off, and the signature purporting to be that of the petitioner is appearing on the summons. However, the latter proceedings namely the impugned order, dated 19-03-1999, distraint order with respect to notice of attachment of immovable property etc., contained the signature of the petitioner, which is similar to his signature appearing in the affidavit and the vakalat filed in the present writ petition. However, the signature purporting to be that of the petitioner as appearing in the summons, dated 02- 03-1999, however is entirely different. Further, in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent has merely stated that notice, dated 02-03-1993, was served on him. However, the date of service is not found and alleged proof of service is highly unsatisfactory. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity to him, to file his objections and hearing, if asked for. In pursuance of the interim order passed by this court on 23-02-2001, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- and the said order is reported to have been complied with. In view of the direction as above remitting the proceedings from the notice stage onwards, the said deposit shall abide the result of the final orders. The attachment of the immovable property of the petitioner, however, shall continue and shall also abide the result of the final order to be passed by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 02-12-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ANURADHA}