HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.4796 of 2003 Dated this the 18th day of February 2008 Between: M/s. Ashok Industries, Anaparthy Village and Mandal … Petitioner AND The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd, Kakinada, and another … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.4796 of 2003 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of the first respondent in issuing the demand notice and the auction notice as illegal and arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. 2) The petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the second respondent-bank for his business. The amount has to be paid in 14 quarterly equal instalments commencing after six months from the date of borrowing loan. He repaid the amount of Rs.1,30,862/- and later he failed to repay the amount because his industry was effected with severe drought and on account of power cut. The first respondent gave a notice on 10.01.2002 under Section 71 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 informing that he owed an amount of Rs.12,37,327/- from the second respondent-bank as on 30.09.2001 and directed to appear before the bank on 25.02.2002 failing which, as to why a certificate should not be issued under Section 71 (1) of the Act against him. The petitioner made his appearance and denied the liability. But to his utter surprise, a demand notice was issued by the first respondent stating that the amount has to be paid with costs, otherwise, distrained property will be brought to sale. The petitioner further contended that the distraint order does not contain the name of the officer, who is authorized to distrain the property, date and seal of the office from which it is issued. Immediately he approached the second respondent to furnish the details of the loan account. Accordingly, the second respondent furnished the statement of loan account, which indicates that he has to pay the total amount of Rs.12,87,987/-, which is less than the amount mentioned in the demand notice and as such the impugned notice is illegal and arbitrary. 3) On 21.03.2003 when the matter came up for admission, an interim order was passed by this Court granting stay of proposed sale on the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the amount due on or before 31.03.2003 and the said time was also extended by one more week, but the petitioner failed to pay the amount. Another order was passed by this Court on 07.04.2003 observing that it is open to the respondents to take appropriate action in law against the petitioner as the conditional order of this Court dated 21.03.2003 was not complied with. Subsequently, there was no information whether the sale was held. 4) However, after going through the impugned notice, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notice and more over, under Rule 52 (14) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, the petitioner is at liberty to file objections regarding the amount due or any other objection within 30 days from the date of notice, but the petitioner did not avail the same. 5) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file objections, if any, within 30 days from the date of this order, if the property is not auctioned, and confirmed by the concerned authorities. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 18.02.2008 Isn