Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Badepalli Hareesh Reddy Harish Reddy vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 2025
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010290332024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 14502/2024
Between:
1. BADEPALLI HAREESH REDDY @ HARISH REDDY, S/O LATE
RAMANA REDDY, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE
EMPLOYEE, R/O NO.11, AYAN NILAYAM, AYYAPPA NAGAR,
K R PURAM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA.
2. BADEPALLI AJAY REDDY, S/O LATE RAMANA REDDY, AGED
34 YEARS, OCC SENIOR MANAGER, ANDHRA PRAGATI
GRAMEENA BANK, TADIPATRI MAIN BRANCH, R/O 15/1646,
VIJAYANAGAR COLONY, TADIPATRI-515411.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT
OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT BUILDING,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.
2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES/ OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, DISTRICT CO-
OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, KADAPA,
KADAPA DISTRICT.
3. THE ARBITRATOR AND SENIOR INSPECTOR/SALE
OFFICER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR/OSD, DCC
BANK, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT.
4. THE KADAPA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK
LIMITED, RS ROAD, KADAPA-516001, REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
5. THE MATH PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE
SOCIETY, NEAR HM DEGREE COLLEGE, RAYACHOTI
TOWN AND MANDAL ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/CEO.
...RESPONDENT(S):
SRK, J
W.P.No.14502 of 2024
2
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or
direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
declaring respondent issued under Rc.No.67/DR-OSD/Legal
Section/2024 Dated 14-06-2024 without considering the
objections dated 04-06-2024 of the Petitioners to the show cause
notice dated 14-05-2024 ii. the inaction of the Respondents no.2
to 5 in furnishing the documents relating to the Loan said to have
been availed by the father of the Petitioners from the 5
Respondent and / or the award said to have been passed in claim
no. 155/2021-22 dated 01-05-2021 by the 3 Respondent,
enabling the Petitioners to avail their legal remedies under the
provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. As illegal, arbitrary
and violative of Articles 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of India
apart from being violative of i. the order of the 2 Principles of
Natural Justice and set aside the order of the 2ND Respondent
dated 14-06-2024 and consequently direct the Respondents No.2
to 5 to furnish ail the documents submitted by the 5TH
Respondent with 3RD Respondent relating to claim no. 155/2021-
22 including the certificate/decree dated 01-05-2021 issued by
the 3 Respondent under section 71 of the ARCS Act enabling the
Petitioners to avail the remedies under law and/or pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further
proceedings pursuant to the order of the 2 Respondent issued
under Rc.No.67/DR-OSD/Legal Section/2024 Dated 14-06-2024
and/or pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to vacate the Interim Order
passed on 18.07.2024 in W.P.No. 14502/2024
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU
SRK, J
W.P.No.14502 of 2024
3
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SURAGANI KRISHNA VAMSI
2. M SIVA JYOTHI
3. GP FOR COOPERATION
The Court made the following:
SRK, J
W.P.No.14502 of 2024
4
Date on which Judgment was 11.11.2025
reserved
:
Date on which Judgment was 22.11.2025
pronounced
:
Date on which Judgment was 22.11.2025
uploaded on the website of the High
:
Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 14502 OF 2024
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ or order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring-
nd
i. the Order of 2 respondent issued under
Rc.No.67/DR-OSD/Legal Section/2024, dated 14.06.2024 without considering the Objections, dated 04.06.2024 of the petitioners to the show-cause notice, dated 14.05.2024;
ii. the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in furnishing the documents relating to the loan said to have been availed by the th father of the petitioners from 5 respondent and/or the Award said to have been passed in Claim No.155/2021-22, dated 01.05.2021 rd by 3 respondent, enabling the petitioners to avail their legal remedies under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912;
as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of nd natural justice and set-aside the order of 2 respondent, dated 14.06.2024 and consequently, direct the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to th rd furnish all the documents submitted by 5 respondent with 3 respondent relating to Claim No.155/2021-22 including the rd Certificate/Decree, dated 01.05.2021 issued by 3 respondent under Section 71 of the APCS Act, 1964 enabling the petitioners to SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 5 avail the remedies under law and/or pass such other order or orders...'
2. Contents of the affidavit filed by 2nd petitioner, in brief, are that 2nd petitioner is the younger brother of 1st petitioner and he gave affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of 1st petitioner. On 04.02.2024, 2nd petitioner was informed by the Secretary of 5th respondent that his father availed loan from 5th respondent during February, 2019 for purchase of sheep and stressed them to make payment against the said loan; that on 20.03.2024, petitioners got issued legal notice to 5th respondent demanding them to furnish documents, relating to the alleged loan transaction, said to have contracted by their father; that 5th respondent got issued reply notice, dated 06.04.2024 stating that an amount of Rs.4,76,700/- was sanctioned to their father to purchase sheep and upon his instructions the said amount was paid to one Mr. Nagendra Reddy and their father was said to have executed all the relevant documents including mortgaging the property on 02.03.2019. It was also stated in the reply notice that the father of petitioners made part payment of Rs.21,400/- on 19.03.2021 and demised thereafter and thus, the petitioners being the legal heirs, they are liable to pay the debt; that in the reply notice, it was SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 6 further stated that 5th respondent initiated proceedings before 3rd respondent vide Claim No.155/2021-22 for the amount due, being the installment due as on the date.
(b) The respondent No.5 did not furnish the documents relating to the said loan transactions; that on 18.04.2024, 2nd petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity 'the RTI Act, 2005') to furnish the information, but the said application was rejected by respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the premise that the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to them. While so, 2nd respondent issued show-cause notice, dated 14.05.2024 stating that 3rd respondent was said to have issued Certificate/Decree under Section 71 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity 'the APCS Act, 1964') for an amount of Rs.1,77,698/- with further interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum from the date 01.05.2021 till the date of realization vide Claim No.155/2021-22, dated 01.05.2021.
(c) In response to the said notice, 2nd petitioner submitted a representation on 04.06.2024 specifically contending that they were not aware of the details of loan transaction, said to have contracted by their father and they were not issued any notice earlier, either by 3rd respondent or 5th respondent and they SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 7 never executed any mortgage and requested to furnish all the relevant documents including the Certificate/Decree issued by 3rd respondent. However, 2nd respondent, without considering the said objections/representation, passed impugned Order, dated 14.06.2024 stating that the explanation submitted, was examined with reference to Section 70 read with Rule 52 (2) of the APCS Act, 1964. Even, detailed representation was submitted by 2nd petitioner, the answer was mentioned to the extent that it was not considered, thus, the impugned Order is a non-speaking order, which is not in accordance with law. The respondents are not entitled for recovery of amount from the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned Order.
(d) If the father of petitioners had contracted a loan from 5th respondent, certainly, it has to be recovered from the petitioners from the estate devolved upon the petitioners. However, the respondents are under obligation to furnish all the relevant documents and cannot deprive their legal right to challenge the genuinty of the Award before the appropriate Forum under Section 76 of the APCS Act, 1964. Without furnishing the copy of Certificate/Decree said to have issued by 3rd respondent under Section 71 of the APCS Act, 1964 and without furnishing SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 8 the documents, said to have submitted by 5th respondent with 3rd respondent in Claim No.155/2021-22, the respondents cannot forcibly initiate the recovery proceedings without permitting them to avail their legal remedies. Hence, the Writ Petition.
3. At the stage of admission in the Writ Petition, this Court, vide Order, dated 18.07.2024 granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order passed by 2nd respondent, subject to depositing of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of the order, failing which, without reference to further proceedings, interim stay granted, stands automatically vacated. In compliance of the aforesaid order, petitioners deposited an amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) in the form of Demand Draft, dated 12.08.2024 drawn in favour of 5th respondent and submitted the same to 5th respondent.
4. Respondent No.4 filed counter-affidavit, denying the contents of the affidavit. It is contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as there is alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 76 of the APCS Act, 1964 to the Cooperative Tribunal. Petitioner No.2 made an application on 18.04.2024 to the office of 4th respondent seeking to furnish certain information SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 9 in respect of loan granted by 5th respondent to his father; that vide Letter RC No./KDCCB/Legal and Vigilance/RTI/2024-25, dated 06.05.2024 it was informed to him that in view of Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9017 of 2023, dated 07.10.2013, the Cooperative Society would not fall within the definition of Public Authority and therefore, the information sought cannot be provided. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Cooperative Societies are not public authorities and hence, not legally obliged to furnish any information as sought for, by a citizen under the RTI Act. The impugned Order reflects that during the life time of father of writ petitioners, Certificate under Section 71 of the APCS Act, 1964 had been issued on 24.06.2021. The father of petitioners did not challenge the said Certificate. Therefore, Certificate issued under Section 71 of the APCS Act, 1964 has become final. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
5. Respondent No.5 filed counter-affidavit along with vacate stay petition, contending that the father of petitioners took long term loan in 5th respondent-Society for an amount of Rs.4,76,700/- and later, he committed default in payment of loan installments to a tune of Rs.1,77,698/-; that 5th respondent raised SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 10 an application for recovery of debt and 3rd respondent was appointed as Arbitrator and the Sale Certificate under Section 71 of the APCS Act, 1964 on 01.05.2021 for recovery of debt arrears of Rs.1,77,698/- with further interest at 12.5% per annum through Claim No.155/2021-2022 was issued.
(b) Respondent No.5 recently came to know that the father of petitioners died on 07.09.2021 before full satisfaction of the decree/certificate and therefore, he submitted proposal for filing the Execution Petition against the petitioners and their mother, as they being the legal representatives of their deceased borrower; that the petitioners requested the mortgage information under the RTI Act, 2005, but as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Cooperative Societies do not fall within the definition of public authority; that upon the explanation submitted by the petitioners and their mother to the notice of 2 nd respondent issued on 14.05.2024, 2nd respondent passed a reasoned order through Rc.No.67/DR-OSD/Legal Section/2024, dated 14.06.2024. The Writ Petition is not maintainable, as alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal under Section 76 of the APCS Act, 1964.
SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 11
(c) The impugned Order in the present Writ Petition clearly shows that the Certificate under Section 71 of the APCS Act, 1964 was issued at the time, when the father of petitioners was alive; that the father of petitioners did not challenge the said certificate issued under Section 71 of the APCS Act, 1964 and thus, the Certificate had attained its finality. Hence, it is prayed to vacate the interim Order, dated 18.07.2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation representing respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and
5. Perused the entire material available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that respondent No.5 did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and even, they did not furnish the documents relating to the loan transactions said to have availed by their deceased father and even their application, dated 18.04.2024 under the RTI Act, 2005 to furnish the relevant loan documents, was rejected by respondent Nos.4 and 5, therefore, Certificate/Decree issued by 3rd respondent under Section 71 of SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 12 the APCS Act, 1964 is not executable one. The impugned Order is a non-speaking order and it is not in accordance with law.
8. Learned counsel for 4th respondent would contend that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as there is alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 76 of the APCS Act, 1964 to the Cooperative Tribunal. Learned counsel would further contend that the Cooperative Society would not fall within the definition of Public Authority and hence, it was not legally obliged to furnish any information as sought for, by a citizen under the RTI Act. Therefore, Certificate issued by 2nd respondent under Section 71 of the APCS Act, 1964 attains finality.
9. Learned counsel for 5th respondent would contend that 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioners and their mother on 14.06.2024 and they submitted their explanation, basing on which, 2nd respondent passed a reasoned impugned order. The Writ Petition is not maintainable, as alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal under Section 76 of the APCS Act, 1964. Learned counsel further contends that the Certificate under Section 71 of the APCS Act, 1964 was issued during the life time of father of petitioners.
SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 13
10. It is an undisputed fact that 1st and 2nd petitioners are brothers and they and their mother are the legal representatives of the deceased Ramana Reddy. A perusal of entire material on record goes to show that during pendency of Writ Petition, respondent No.5 filed memo along with copies of documents, pertaining to the loan, said to have availed by father of the petitioners. A perusal of those documents goes to show that one Badepalli Ramana Reddy, S/o.Venkatrami Reddy, who is the father of petitioners, during his life time, availed long term loan from 5th respondent for a sum of Rs.4,76,700/- on 01.03.2019 for the purpose of purchasing sheep and for that, an extent of Ac.4.60 cents of immovable property, which is worth of Rs.6,57,800/-, situated at Matli village, was being mortgaged by father of petitioners. Respondent No.5 also filed copy of Demand Notice, dated 08.12.2020 issued by 5th respondent to the father of petitioners, in which, it was mentioned that an amount of Rs.1,87,433/- was due by the father of petitioners to 5th respondent.
11. A perusal of documents filed by 5th respondent further goes to show that, on 11.06.2021, 4th respondent got issued Notice to the father of petitioners, stating that as on 30.04.2021, SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 14 an amount of Rs.1,77,698/- was due by him to 5th respondent and directed him either to pay the due amount or to submit his explanation by making his personal appearance on 24.06.2021 at 11.00 a.m. before 5th respondent. It was further mentioned in the said notice in case of non-compliance of any of the aforesaid conditions, a Certificate would be issued against the father of petitioners, directing the concerned authority to collect the due amount from him as per Section 71 of the APCS Act, 1964. However, the material on record discloses that the father of petitioners failed to discharge the debt to 5th respondent and as such, 3rd respondent-Arbitrator, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 71 (1) of the APCS Act, 1964, issued Certificate, ordering that a sum of Rs.1,77,698/- was due by the father of petitioners towards arrears to 5th respondent, shall be payable together with further interest at the rate of 12.50% per annum from 01.05.2021 till the date of realization. The said Certificate is executable for recovery of arrears under sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the APCS Act, 1964. The schedule immovable property is in total an extent of Ac.4.65 cents, situated in Matli village, Veeraballi Mandal of YSR Kadapa District under different survey numbers, out of which, an extent of Ac.4.60 cents of SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 15 schedule immovable property was mortgaged in favour of 5th respondent for the long term loan availed by him.
12. A perusal of entire material on record it is evident that the father of petitioners, during his life time availed long term loan for a sum of Rs.4,76,700/- from 5th respondent, by mortgaging an extent of Ac.4.60 cents of immovable property, towards purchase of sheep and later, he committed default in payment of installments and though, notices were served upon him, demanding him to discharge the debt due under the mortgage, he failed to do so and accordingly, 3rd respondent issued Certificate as per Section 71 (1) of the APCS Act. Subsequently, the father of petitioners died on 07.09.2021 before the Decree/Certificate was fully satisfied and therefore, 5th respondent submitted proposals for filing Execution Petition against the petitioners and her mother, as they, being the legal representatives of the deceased borrower, upon whom the estate of the deceased devolved, for realization of the debt.
13. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that they made a representation to 5th respondent on 18.04.2024 under the RTI Act, 2005, to furnish the documents, relating to the loan transactions, said to have contracted by their SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 16 father, but the said request was rejected by respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the premise that the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 are not applicable to 5th respondent.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 would contend that the Co-operative Societies will not fall within the definition of 'Public Authority', therefore, they are not legally obliged to furnish any information sought under the RTI Act, 2005. He placed strong reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others v. State of Kerala and others1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, with regard to the question, as to whether a Co-operative Society falls within the definition of 'Public Authority', under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005, and bound by the obligations to provide information sought for, by a citizen under the RTI Act, 2005, held as under:
(paragraph Nos.52, 53 and 54) "52. ...No provision has been brought to our knowledge indicating that, under the Co-operative Societies Act, a Registrar can call for the details of the bank accounts maintained by the citizens or members in a cooperative bank.
Only those information which a Registrar of Cooperative Societies can have access under the Cooperative Societies Act from a Society could be said to be the information which is "held" or "under the control of public authority". Even those 1 2013 (6) CTC 98 (SC).
SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 17 information, Registrar, as already indicated, is not legally obliged to provide if those information falls under the exempted category mentioned in Section 8 (j) of the Act. Apart from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, there may be other public authorities who can access information from a Co- operative Bank of a private account maintained by a member of Society under law, in the event of which, in a given situation, the society will have to part with that information. But the demand should have statutory backing.
53. Consequently, an information which has been sought for relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, even if he has got that information, is not bound to furnish the same to an applicant, unless he is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, that too, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
54. We, therefore, hold that the Cooperative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act will not fall within the definition of "public authority" as defined under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act and the State Government letter dated 05.05.2006 and the circular dated 01.06.2006 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala, to the extent, made applicable to societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act would stand quashed in the absence of materials to show that they are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government..."
SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 18
15. It is pertinent to refer to Section 2 of the RTI Act, 2005. The said proviso prescribes 'Definitions'. Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 reads thus:
(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted--
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the
appropriate Government,
and includes any--
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially
financed;
(ii) non-Government organisation substantially
financed,
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;"
16. Indisputably, 4th and 5th respondents issued demand notices on the deceased father of petitioners, but not on the petitioners, and as such, they are unaware of the loan contracted by their deceased father from 5th respondent during his life time. Even, when they were informed about the due under the SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 19 Certificate issued by 3rd respondent under Section 71 (1) of the APCS Act, 1964, they made an application to 5th respondent under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, but the said application was rejected on the ground that the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 are not applicable to them. Indeed, the information sought by the petitioners is none other than the loan transactions contracted by their deceased father, and disclosure of such information to the legal representatives of the deceased borrower would not cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the deceased, for the reason that, since the deceased borrower is no more, the liability is on the petitioners, as they being the legal representatives of their deceased father, were asked to discharge the debt and therefore, 5th respondent is legally bound to furnish the same to the petitioners.
17. Rule 52 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, specifies how a decree can be enforced against the legal representative of a deceased defaulter member, making the legal representative liable only to the extent of the deceased's property that has devolved on them. Rule 52 of the APCS Rules, 1964 deals with Procedure in execution of decrees, decisions or orders. It reads as under:
SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 20 (1) Any decree-holder may apply to the Registrar of the district in which the cause of action arises for the execution of his decree after depositing the necessary costs on a scale fixed in this behalf. The Registrar shall, in case where the application for the recovery of any amount due under a decree or order of the Civil Court, apply to the Civil Court which passed the decree or order for the transfer to him of the said decree or order and the records specified in Rule 6 of Order XXI in the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure and on receipt of such application the Civil Court shall transfer them to the Registrar of the District. Where, in connection with the proceedings on an application under Section 70 of the Act, any person requires the issue of any process, or objects to any process issued or proposed to be issued or requires the adjournment of any proceedings or objects to any order passed, he shall pay such fees as may be fixed in this behalf. If the defaulter resides or the property to be proceeded against is situated in a district other than that in which the cause of action arose, the application shall be made to the Registrar of the district in which the cause of action arose who shall transfer the application to the Registrar of the district where the defaulter resides or other property is situated;
(2) Where a defaulter dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, an application under sub-rule (1) may be made against the legal representative of the deceased and thereupon all the provisions of this rule, shall, save as otherwise provided in this sub-rule, apply as if such legal representative were the defaulter. Where the decree is executed against such legal representative he shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased devolved on him and has not been duly disposed of; and for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the Registrar, executing the decree SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 21 may of his own motion or on the application of the decree-
holder compel the legal representative to produce such accounts as it thinks fit.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this rule, any property in the hands of a son or other descendant under the Hindu Law for the payment of the debt in respect of which a decree has been passed against a deceased ancestor shall be deemed to be the property devolved on such son or descendant.
18. In the case on hand, when Notice vide Rc.No.67/DR- OSD/LS/2024, dated 14.05.2024 was issued by 4th respondent to the petitioners, 2nd petitioner made a representation on 04.06.2024 to 4th respondent to furnish loan documents, agreement, statement of account, debt authorization slips, acknowledgment of debt and other relevant information, but the same were not furnished to the petitioners. Even, Section 52 (2) of the APCS Rules, 1964 mandates that where the decree is executed against a legal representative, he shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased devolved on him and for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the Registrar, executing the decree may of his own motion or on the application of the decree-holder, compel the legal representative to produce such accounts. When the petitioners are unaware of loan transactions of their deceased father, unilaterally exercising the SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 22 power under Section 70 read with Rule 52 (2) of the APCS Act, 1964, recovering the debt through the attachment and sale of property by execution of orders as per the Decree/Certificate under Section 71 (1) of the APCS Act, 1964 passed against the deceased defaulter, is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court is of the firm opinion that one opportunity can be afforded to the petitioners to put-forth their case after furnishing all the relevant loan transaction documents availed by their deceased father during his life time.
19. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed, setting-aside the Order passed by 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.67/DR-OSD/Legal Section/2024, dated 14.06.2024. The petitioners are directed to make an application before 5th respondent, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, seeking them to furnish all the required documents, pertaining to loan availed by their deceased father and upon such application, 5th respondent shall furnish all those documents to the petitioners within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of application from the petitioners, and later, 2nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders by exercising power under Section 70 read with Rule 52 (2) of the APCS Act, 1964, within a SRK, J W.P.No.14502 of 2024 23 period of four (04) weeks from the date of furnishing copies to the petitioners.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY November, 2025.
DNB