( 1 ) THESE four writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of at the admission stage by this common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in W. P. Nos. 11039,11046 and 10859- of 2002 obtained loans from erracheruvupalle Primary Agricultural co-operative Society (Erracheruvupalle pacs), Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor district. The petitioners in W. P. No. 11047 of 2002 obtained agricultural loans from kondaraju Kalva Primary Agricultural co-operative Society, (Kondaraju Kalva pacs) Kondaraju Kalva, Tavanampally mandal, Chittoor District. All the loans are agricultural loans ranging from Rs. 10,000 to rs. 20,000 payable in quarterly instalments for a period of five years. According to the petitioners they have paid some amounts and still they are due some amounts to the said Societies. On 6-5-2002 the second respondent issued a public auction notice proposing to bring the immovable properties of the petitioners for sale in the pubic auction in execution of a recovery certificate issued by a competent authority under Section 71 (1) of the A. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1964 (for short, the Act ). The petitioners, therefore, filed the present writ petitions seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in bringing the properties of the petitioners for sale on 24-6-2002 in the case of erracheruvupalle PACS, and on 26-2-2002 in the case of Kondaraju Kalva PACS ).

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri T. C. Krishnan raised three contentions regarding merits of the case. First, he would submit that the recovery certificate was obtained by the PACS under Section 71 (1) of the Act without any notice to the loanees. Secondly he would submit that even after obtaining recovery certificate PACS and sub-Registrar have to give sufficient time and put the petitioners on notice for payment of amount as determined by the registrar under Section 71 (1) of the Act and any execution of recovery certificate without prior notice would violate principles of natural justice. Thirdly he would submit that the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide g. O. Ms. No. 38 dt. 29-1-2002 published a notification in the A. P. Gazette (Part-I) extraordinary, dt. 29-1-2002 declaring as many as 993 Mandals in all the Districts, except Hyderabad District as drought areas and also requested all the District Collectors to take necessary action for identifying the specific areas to enable farmers of those areas to avail credit facilities from banks. He would urge that as Puthalapattu and tavanampally Mandals having been included in the notification declaring the said Mandals as drought areas, the respondents are not authorised to take any steps for recovery of the loans by allowing execution. He would lastly submit that the loan was repayable within five years from the date of the loan and even before the expiry of five years the first respondent is not competent to obtain any recovery certificate much less take out execution proceedings.

( 4 ) THIS Court having regard to the provisions of Section 76 of the Act specifically posed a question to the learned counsel for the petitioners whether or not efficacious and effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioners by way of appeal before the jurisdictional Co-operative tribunal constituted under Section 75 of the Act. The learned Counsel refers to sections 70,76,101 and 104 of the Act as well as Rule 52 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies rules, 1964 (for short, the rules) and would submit that when execution proceedings are initiated for recovery of the loans pursuant to order passed under Section 62 of the Act or execution proceedings are taken up for recovery of loans pursuant to recovery certificate under Section 71 (1) of the Act, appeal would not lie under Section 76 of the act. This submission is vehemently refuted by the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 Sri P. Srinivas.

( 5 ) ANY financing bank or PACS which sanctioned loan can recover the loan by approaching the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document