IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that prior judicial decisions are binding and that internal payment arrangements do not negate loan obligations under cooperative society regulations.

ORDER :

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :

“...to issue any writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 5th respondent conducting auction sale of the petitioner’s property as per sale notice in Form No.9, dated 4.12.2004 and the alleged purchase of the petitioner’s property in an extent of 12½ cents in R.S.No.636/2 with thatched house bearing door No.3-42 situated at Koduru Village and Mandal, Krishna District through set off in the said auction to have been held on 10.1.2005 and the said registration in its favour by the 5th respondent Sale Officer as per registered sale deed bearing document L.No.27/2011, dated 30.5.2011 and consequential sale by the 6th respondent in favour of the 7th respondent as per the registered sale deed bearing document No.3188/2011, dated 12.12.2011, as highly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to mandatory provisions of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 1964 and rules made there under and violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same…”

2. Heard Sri Y. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Suragani Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4, Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 and Sri K.V.L.N. Narasimha, learned counsel for 7th respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner has repaid the total loan amount to the 1st respondent, as such, issuing sale notice, dated 04.12.2004 in Form No.9 and the consequential sale alleged to have been held on 10.01.2005 and the alleged purchase by the 6th respondent society through set off for a sum of Rs.1,08,000/-, are highly arbitrary and initiating surcharge proceedings under Section 60(1) of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies 1964 for recovery of arrears of loan instalments from the petitioner, is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and violative of Articles 14,19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, therefore, the alleged purchase of the petitioner’s property in an extent of Ac.12 ½ cents in R.S.No.636/2 with thatched house bearing Dr.No.3-42 situated at Koduru Village and Mandal, Krishna District through set off in the said auction to have been held on 10.01.2005 and the said registration in its favour by the 5th respondent as per registered sale deed bearing document L.No.27/2011, dated 30.05.2011 and consequential sale by the 6th respondent in favour of the 7th respondent as per the registered sale deed bearing document No.3188 of 2011, dated 12.12.2011, is highly illegal and arbitrary, therefore, prayed to set aside the sale notice issued under Form-9, dated 04.12.2004.

4. At the outset it is the sum and substance of the case of the petitioner that despite the entire loan amount has been paid to the respondent authorities, they have sold the aforesaid property, therefore, prayed to set aside the sale notice issued in Form No.9, dated 04.12.2004.

5. Learned Designated Senior Counsel, Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, for 6th respondent-Society, would submit that the entire issues raised in this writ petition have been answered by the composite High Court in W.P.No.15296 of 2002, which was filed by the petitioner herein, vide its order, dated 23.11.2004 and the same was dismissed and the petitioner herein carried the matter to the appeal vide W.A.No.2195 of 2004 and the same was dismissed for default on 30.06.2011, therefore, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

6. On perusal of the order, dated 23.11.2004 in W.P.No.15296 of 2002, the Court observed that it is imperative to extract the order for disposal of the present writ petition and the relevant portion of the said order reads as follows :

“Whether the proceedings as initiated against the petitioner for recovery of the