THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23812 of 2007 ORDER: The Pulla Cooperative Rural Bank Limited, the second respondent herein, initiated proceedings under Section 71 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount. A Recovery Certiﬁcate was issued on 27.11.2001. This was followed by execution proceedings, dated 14.09.2007. Complaining that he was not aware of any of these proceedings, the petitioner ﬁled O.A.No.56 of 2007 before the Chairman, A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada. He also ﬁled an application for stay. Initially, an order was passed on 09.10.2007, granting stay on condition that the petitioner shall furnish security of immovable property for the disputed amount on or before 24.10.2007. The petitioner is said to have oﬀered a property, situated in Guntur District as security and that the Tribunal is said to have refused to accept the same. In view of this development, the petitioner ﬁled an application seeking permission to deposit 50% of the amount in lieu of the security. The Tribunal dismissed the application, through its order, dated 25.10.2007. The petitioner challenges the same. The respondents ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit opposing the claim of the petitioner. Heard Sri Y.Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi for respondents 1 and 4, Sri K.Chidambaram, the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondents 3 and 5. The facts of the case, which are mentioned precisely in the above paragraph, disclose that the Tribunal did not act objectively. On an application ﬁled by the petitioner in O.A.No.56 of 2007, the Tribunal passed a detailed order, dated 09.10.2007, granting stay on condition that the petitioner furnishes security of immovable property, in lieu of cash deposit. 24.10.2007 was stipulated as the date before which the security must be oﬀered. It is rather astonishing that the valuable land of the petitioner was brought to sale on 22.10.2007 itself. As though this illegality is not suﬃcient, an item of property offered by the petitioner as security was not accepted, on the ground that it was situated in a diﬀerent District, little realizing that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal extends to number of other Districts also. When the petitioner came with an oﬀer to deposit 50% of the disputed amount, the request was turned down, through an order, dated 25.10.2007. A perusal of the said order discloses that it hardly makes any sense and if at all anything, it would only reﬂect lack of experience or non-application of mind. The petitioner was subjected to number of unnecessary proceedings. He also ﬁled W.P.No.5483 of 2008 against the order of conﬁrmation of sale. The whole episode is in a very bad taste. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the sale of the property of the petitioner, eﬀected by the Tribunal is set aside. In case no security is oﬀered as yet, the Tribunal shall accept deposit of 50% of the amount involved, which, the petitioner shall deposit within three weeks from today. The Tribunal shall proceed to decide the matter on merits without giving any scope for such illegality, within a period of two months (2) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:07.11.2008. Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl