IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.17433 of 2001 Between: The Chittoor District Coop.Marketing Society Limited, Rep by its Business Manager, Chittoor. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Cooperative Tribunal Rep by its Secretary, Chandra Vihar, Opp: Exhibiton Grounds, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Cadre Deputy Registrar (Enforcement Officer), A.P.Markfed, Parishrama Bhanvan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 3 The A.P. Markfed, Rep by its District, Chittoor District. ...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 declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the sale Notice in E.P.No.8/84-85 and E.P.No.30/90/91, dt: 16.7.2001 and also the order in C.T.a.no.261/1997 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, contrary to Rc.No.EP.No.8/84-85, 30/90-91, dt: 19.2.1998. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.KALYAN RAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.17433 of 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing Sale Notice in E.P.No.8/84- 85 and E.P.No.30/90-91 dated 16.07.2001 and also the order in C.T.A.No.261 of 1997, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the very E.P. proceedings. It appears, there were some disputes between the petitioner-Society and the third respondent, regarding certain amounts for the supply of goods. When arbitration proceedings were initiated, Award No.7/84-85 was passed for Rs.8,996/- (Rupees eight thousand nine hundred and ninety six only) and Award No.8/84-85 was passed for Rs.1,43,198.83 ps (Rupees one lakh forty three thousand one hundred and ninety eight and paise eighty three only). When these amounts were not paid, E.P.Nos.8/84-85 and 30/90-91 were filed respectively. However, it appears, in the impugned proceedings, though E.Ps. were not mentioned, the amount to be realized was mentioned as Rs.23,24,136.45 ps (Rupees twenty three lakh twenty four thousand one hundred and thirty six and paise forty five only) and not as is mentioned in E.P.Nos.8/84-85 and 30/90-91. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The third respondent filed a counter and at para-4 of the said counter, he has admitted that there was a mistake of claiming an amount of Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakh only) from the petitioner and however, the same was immediately rectified by the Sale Officer under his letter dated 19.02.1998 addressed to the Business Manager and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) paid by the petitioner on 16.12.1997 was duly credited; requesting the petitioner to pay the balance amount. In view of the above, it appears, claiming of Rs.23,24,136.45 ps was a mistake. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. However, this will not preclude the third respondent from realizing the amounts under Award Nos.7/84-85 and 8/84-85, which are the subject matter of E.P.Nos.8/84-85 and 30/90-91 pending before the second respondent, if any, necessary as of today. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _____________ (C.V.RAMULU, J) 15th June 2009 RRB