D CHINA MALLAIAH Vs. DISTRICT REGISTAR

JUDGEMENT

(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.