( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. Satyanarayana reddy, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners and Sri V. Copal Rao,learned counsel representing the respondents.

( 2 ) SRI Satyanarayana Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners would contend that as per the Government policy and the official instructions, loans obtained by the petitioners-farmers are exempted to an extent of Rs. 10,000/ -. Learned Counsel also would submit that despite the policy of the Central Government, all of a sudden the Respondents 2 and 3 without any notice, had been regularly visiting the house of the petitioners with subordinates and were threatening the petitioners to repay the loans, otherwise they would attach the movable properties of the petitioners and such acts are not authorized by law.

( 3 ) ON the contrary, Sri Gopala Rao, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents had taken this Court through the averments made in the counter-affidavit and would submit that in view of the fact that already a certificate had been issued under Section 71 of the Andhra Pradesh co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short "the Act"), the petitioners are having a remedy by way of an appeal under Section 76 of the Act and without availing the same the present writ petition had been filed without any justification, whatsoever.

( 4 ) THE petitioners filed the present writ petition for a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting for the repayment of the loan amount taken by the petitioners from the second respondent Bank in the financial year 1984-85 as highly arbitrary and illegal and for further direction not to insist for repayment of the said loan hereafter and pass suitable orders.

( 5 ) IT is stated that the petitioners had obtained long term loan from the Society for the development of agricultural lands in the financial year 1984-85. It is further stated that in the year 1987 the then deputy Prime Minister had announced a government policy and issued official instructions that the loans obtained by the farmers to an extent of Rs. 10,000/- will be exempted from repayment. It is also stated that the respondents had not taken any steps subsequent thereto. But, all of a sudden in the year 1997 there were threats of attachment of movable properties of the petitioners and it is stated that such acts are illegal and unauthorized by law. It is also stated that the third respondent had made the orders without following the procedure specified under Section 71 of the act specified supra and in the said circumstances, this writ petition was filed.

( 6 ) RESPONDENTS filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations. It is stated that the petitioners are chronic defaulters and they failed to pay the instalments regularly. Hence the second respondent was forced to file an application under Section 71 of the Act before the third respondent and the third respondent issued notices to the petitioners by fixing a particular date of hearing requesting them to appear on the date of hearing and file their objections, the petitioners, having received and having knowledge about the notices, failed to file the objections or to appear on the date of hearing. Hence the third respondent issued certificate under Section 71 of the Act, li is also specifically stated that it is true that the Government of India announced a debt relief scheme in the year 1989 whereundcr an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was waived for the loan outstanding as on 2. 10. 1989 with certain conditions. It is submitted that the respondents extended the benefit of the scheme as per the norms fixed to the petitioners as shown in the anncxure and hence, the allegations to the contra are untenable. Further specific stand was taken that the petitioners are having an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 76 of the act to the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative tribunal and hence, on this