ORDER : Gopala Krishna Tamada, J. This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in recovering an amount of Rs. 870/- per month from the pay of the petitioner for 36 months amounting to Rs. 31,320/- on the basis of the letter dated 12-1-1998 issued by the third respondent as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The facts that give rise to filling of this writ petition are that the petitioner is working as Surface General Mazdoor in Singareni Colleries Company Limited. In the year 1994, he purchased a black and white T.V for an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on credit basis from the 3rd respondent-society and an amount of Rs. 1,000/- was paid towards advance and the balance amount of Rs. 4,000/- has to be paid in 36 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs. 230/-. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequently he received a notice dated 12-1-1998 issued by the first respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs. 870/- P.M. for 36 months, which amounts to Rs. 31,320/-. But it was shown in the letter dated 9-2-1998 issued by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner owes an amount of Rs. 15,660/- to the 3rd respondent. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent at the time of purchase of T.V. set in the month of April 1994 obtained his signatures on white papers and In good faith he signed on the white papers, but unfortunately the 3rd respondent tampered with the same and created a false record as If a loan of Rs. 15,660/- was advanced to the petitioner. It is further stated that even if it is a fact that he owes certain amount to the third respondent, respondents 1 and 2 ought not to have attached his salary by deducting the amount of Rs. 870/- P.M. for 36 months. It is further stated that as it is a dispute between the 3rd respondent-society and the petitioner, the only course left open is to refer the matter to an arbitrator, but not by way of recovery as is done in the instant case without any enquiry. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter-affidavits denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 4. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter-affidavits denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. 5. It is unnecessary for this court to go into the factual aspects. It appears that there is a dispute between the 3rd respondent and the petitioner herein and the facts are very much in dispute. This court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot go into the disputed facts and it is for the concerned authority to come to a conclusion after holding a detailed enquiry. That apart Section 61 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act deals with disputes, which may be referred to the Registrar. Here is a case where there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent ought to have referred the matter to the Registrar for adjudication. Instead, the 3rd respondent has chosen to refer the matter to the petitioner's employer who in turn started deducting the amount from out of the salary of the petitioner, which in my considered view is not warranted. In fact, except the letter given by the 3rd respondent, there is no material before respondents 1 and 2 to come to a conclusion that the petitioner owes certain amount. 6. An Identical Issue has come up for debate before this Court In Gunda Nageswara Rao and others v. The General Manager, West Godavari District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru and others, 1993(1) ALT 119 wherein this Court held that the respondents are not entitled to pounce upon the petitioners and apply coercive methods like attachments etc., for realising the amounts on account of the arrears of crop loan. The relevant paragraph is extracted as under: "At issue, is the validity of the action of the respondents in seeking to collect the amounts towards loan and that too by applying coercive methods. The relevant paragraph is extracted as under: "At issue, is the validity of the action of the respondents in seeking to collect the amounts towards loan and that too by applying coercive methods. The first issue to be determined is as to whether the insurance scheme covers the crop loan in question for the period concerned, and as to whether the place where the crop loan was disbursed is a drought affected area and as to whether the petitioners had suffered on account of the said drought and that consequently, they are not liable to repay the crop loan, but the respondents have to ask the insurer for the repayment of the said crop loan. These are the issues that cannot be settled by me as they need fact-finding and the said fact-finding is not within my purview and the said fact-finding is yet to be made by the proper authority. It is un-understandable as to how the respondents are entitled to force or coerce the petitioners to pay the amounts even without initiating legal proceedings. As the petitioners dispute their liability to repay the loan amount on account of the fact that they are fully insured and that the insurer is liable, it is for the respondents to raise a dispute under Section 61 of the Act. So that arbitration proceedings are initiated and are decided under Section 62 of the Co-operative Societies Act, until this procedure is adopted, the respondents are not entitled to pounce upon the petitioners and apply coercive methods like attachments etc., for realising the amounts on account of the arrears of crop loan." 7. Hence this Court is of the view that the action of respondents 1 and 2 in deducting the amount from out of the salary of the petitioner basing on the letter addressed by the 3rd respondent is illegal. If the third respondent so chooses he may refer the matter to the Registrar as contemplated under Section 61 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed directing respondents 1 and 2 not to recover any amount from out of the salary of the petitioner in pursuance of the proceedings dated 12-1-1998 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending any action to be initiated under the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act. No costs.