ORDER : The above writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus to declare the sale certificate issued by 2nd respondent in Letter No.431/2022 dated 30.09.2022 under sub rule 14 (v) of the Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short “Rules 1964”) in favour of 8th respondent in relation to property covered in R.S.No.465-1, 2 & 3, of an extent of Ac.0.48 cents, Ac.3.73 cents, Ac.1.04 cents, in total Ac.5.25 cents, as illegal, arbitrary to the contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “Act 1964”). 2. (a) The facts germane to decide the case are that 5th respondent is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited registered under the provisions of the Act 1964 and Rules 1964; 7th respondent, one of the members of the Society took loan from the Society by mortgaging his lands; that 7th respondent committed default in payment of loan; that 5th respondent filed claim under Section 71 of the Act 1964 for recovery of dues before the Arbitrator/sale officer, office of the Deputy Registrar, DCCB Ltd., Eluru; that Arbitrator/Sale officer after enquiry issued certificates vide Nos.242/15-16, 243/15-16, 246/15-16, 253/15-16 dated 01.06.2016 and No.1874/16/17 dated 28.02.2017; that basing on the certificates issued under Section 71 of the Act 1964, Execution Petition Nos.2558/2016-17, 2597/2016-17, 40/2017-18, 60/2017-18 and 2734/2017-18 were filed under Section 70 of the Act to recover the amount by attaching and sale of the properties before the sale officer. (b) The sale officer served demand notice in Form Nos.2 and 6 by following the procedure under Rule 52(3) of the Rules 1964 and sale notice of immovable property in Form Nos.8 and 9 were issued under Rule 52 (11) of the Rules 1964; that auction notice was published in Sakshi newspaper on 20.05.2022; that tom-tom was also made in the area where land is situated and also area of operation of the Society; that no objections were filed regarding conducting of sale/auction; that since no objections were received, sale/auction was conducted on 26.05.2022 in the premises of 5th respondent; that 8th respondent became the highest bidder in the sale/auction; that the Deputy Registrar confirmed the sale on 30.06.2022. (c) Petitioner purchased the properties under registered sale deed dated 03.11.2015 from the 7th respondent; that before purchase of properties, he obtained encumbrance certificate from the Sub Registrar from 01.01.1983 to 31.07.2022; that encumbrance certificate does not indicate any charge or mortgage over the properties; that petitioner made application before the Tahsildar, T. Narasapuram Mandal under Section 6-A of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “Act 1971”) to update the revenue records and mutate his name through mee-seva on 05.12.2019 and 22.06.2022. (d) The Tahsildar, T. Narasapuram informed the petitioner about the registered mortgage executed by 7th respondent in favour of 5th respondent in the year 2012; that petitioner approached the respondents 2 to 5 and expressed his willingness to clear the debt, however, respondents 2 to 5 did not furnish any particulars and hence, he got issued legal notice dated 11.08.2022; that without furnishing information, the auction/sale was conducted on 26.05.2022 for realization of loan amount; that petitioner filed W.P.No.29153 of 2022 and the same was disposed of on 09.09.2022 directing the petitioner to make an application under Rule 52 (13) (i) of the Rules 1964 and it was further directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps for a period of two weeks; that petitioner pursuant to the said direction, made an application to the 2nd respondent on 30.09.2022 and requested the authorities to cancel the auction and to inform the debt, so that he can discharge the same; that the Deputy Registrar by proceedings dated 14.10.2022 informed the petitioner that since no application was filed by the petitioner within time given by the Court in W.P.No.29153 of 2022, sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction purchaser on 28.09.2022 and hence, the representation filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and hence writ petition was filed challenging the sale certificate issued in Form-10. 3. Heard Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri K. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel on behalf of Yaswanth Gade, learned counsel for 5th respondent. 4. 3. Heard Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri K. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel on behalf of Yaswanth Gade, learned counsel for 5th respondent. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that though Court in W.P.No.29153 of 2022 permitted the petitioner to make an application under Rule 52 (13)(i) of the Rules 1964, the copy of the order was dispatched on 20.09.2022 and hence, representation was filed on 30.09.2022 and the authorities without considering the same, intimated to the petitioner that sale certificate was issued in favour of auction purchaser on 28.06.2022 and hence, application cannot be entertained. He further submitted that the auction purchaser is no other than mother-in-law of debtor and he is not aware of the mortgage made by 7th respondent with the 5th respondent and thus, submits that he is a bonafide purchaser. He also would submit that though an appeal is provided under Rule 52 (14) (vi) of the Rules 1964, since the sale certificate issued is against the principles of natural justice, the above writ petition is filed. 5. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel would submit that once the sale certificate is issued, an appeal would lie under Rule 52 (14) (vi) of the Rules 1964 and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Since the 7th respondent failed to discharge loan amount, by following the procedure Auction/sale was conducted, in respect of mortgaged properties, on 26.05.2022; 8th respondent participated and was declared as auction purchaser and the sale was confirmed on 30.06.2022. Petitioner filed W.P.No.29153 of 2022 challenging the action of authorities in conducting auction. Learned single Judge of this Court while disposing of the writ petition observed as follows : 5. Without going into the merits of the various contentions being raised by either side, it would be apt to notice that Rule 52(13)(1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules 1964, permits any person, who has prior interest in the property, to get any sale conducted under the Cooperative Societies Act and Rules, to be set aside by offering the entire amount due to the society. 6. 6. In circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the sale officer in the present case to consider any application made by the petitioner under this Rule and to pass orders on such application in accordance with law. 7. For the purpose of ensuring that the petitioner is able to exercise such a right, no coercive steps for dispossessing the petitioner shall be taken for a period of two weeks. Further, the present order shall not preclude the petitioner from exercising or availing any other remedies that may be available to him under law. There shall be no order as to costs.” 7. Learned single Judge of this Court, in fact, gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the authorities by invoking Rule 52 (13) (i) of the Rules 1964. For better appreciation, Rule 52 (13) (i) is extracted hereunder : 52. Procedure in execution of decrees, decisions or orders:— (13) (i) Where immovable property has been sold by the sale officer, any person either owning such property or holding an interest therein by virtue of a title acquired before such sale may apply to the Registrar of the district to have the sale set aside on his depositing with him— (a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase money; and (b) for payment to the decree-holder, the amount of arrears specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered together with interest thereon and the expenses of attachment, if any, and sale and other costs due in respect of such amount less any amount which may since the date of such proclamation have been received by the decree-holder. (ii) If such application together with the deposit is made within thirty days from the date of sale, the Registrar shall pass an order setting aside the sale and shall repay to the purchase money as far as it has been deposited, together with the five per cent deposited, by the applicant; Provided that if more persons than one have made the application and deposit under this sub-rule, the application of the first depositor to the officer authorised to set aside the sale shall be accepted. (iii) A person applying under sub-rule (14) to set aside the sale of immovable property, shall not be entitled to make an application under the sub-rule. 8. A perusal of Rule 52 (13) (i) (a) & (b) of the Rules 1964 would indicate a person owning property or having interest by virtue of title can apply to the Registrar of the District to have the sale set aside, shall deposit a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase money; and the amount of arrears specified in the proclamation of sale and other costs. If such application is filed within 30 days from the date of sale, the Registrar shall pass orders setting aside the sale. 9. In the case on hand, as indicated supra, sale was conducted on 26.05.2022 and confirmed on 30.06.2022. However, this Court showed indulgence and directed the petitioner to approach the authorities and to make an application Rule 52 (13) (i) of the Rules 1964. Learned single judge further directed respondents not to take any coercive steps for a period of two weeks. The order was passed on 09.09.2022 and the same was uploaded in the High Court’s Website on 11/12.09.2022. Petitioner waited till the order is dispatched and then made representation, not appropriate application in terms of Rule 52(13) (i) of the Rules, on 30-9-2022. According to the petitioner, copy was dispatched on 20.09.2022. However, the writ affidavit does not disclose as to the date when he received that copy. In fact, writ petitioner is aware of the order of in W.P.No.29153 of 2022. Thus, the representation is not in consonance with the application provided under Rule 52 (13) (i) of the Rules 1964. 10. In the meantime, Auction purchaser paid an amount of Rs.97,130/- towards registration; Rs.6,31,350/- towards duty on impressing documents and Rs.220/- towards user charges on 27.09.2022 and requested the authorities to issue sale certificate. Since no application was filed, within two weeks from the date of order of this Court, sale certificate was issued on 28.09.2022 and the same was engrossed on Non-Judicial Stamps on 30.09.2022. 11. Petitioner should be vigilant and ought to have availed the opportunity pursuant to the order of this Court by making proper application under Rule 52 (13) (i) of the Rules 1964. Petitioner, in the opinion of this court, should not be allowed to take advantage of dispatch of order. 11. Petitioner should be vigilant and ought to have availed the opportunity pursuant to the order of this Court by making proper application under Rule 52 (13) (i) of the Rules 1964. Petitioner, in the opinion of this court, should not be allowed to take advantage of dispatch of order. When learned single judge of this Court directed the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps for a period of two weeks, it cannot be construed by the petitioner that said period of two weeks is from the date of dispatch of order copy. Order copy was uploaded in the High Court’s Website on 11/12.09.2022. In fact, after hearing learned counsel order was passed and hence petitioner should have made application within two weeks. As noted supra, copy of order was uploaded and hence petitioner should have made application by depositing 5% poundage and the amount as indicated in Rule 52(13)(i)(a) and (b) of the Rules. Mere making representation will not help the petitioner and it is not in accordance with letter and spirit of the order. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the representation of the petitioner, he came to know about the auction on 14.08.2022. In Paras 4 and 5 of the writ affidavit, petitioner contended that he made application to the Tahsildar under Section 6-A of the Act 1971 for updation of revenue records on 05.12.2019 and 22.06.2022; that the Tahsildar informed the petitioner about the mortgage and thus, the petitioner approached the respondents 2 to 5 for furnishing the details and expressed willingness to clear the entire loans and accordingly, issued legal notice on 11.08.2022. He further contended that without furnishing any information and without notice to petitioner, auction/sale was conducted on 26.05.2022. According to the above averments, petitioner came to know about registered mortgage on 22.06.2022 and approached the authorities and later issued legal notice on 11.08.2022 not to alienate the subject property, however, respondents conducted auction on 26.05.2022. Thus, Auction/sale was conducted on 26.05.2022 much prior to petitioner’s alleged knowledge, since the petitioner is contending that the Tahsildar informed pursuant to application dated 22.06.2022. In the present representation, it was averred that he came to know about the auction on 04.08.2022. Thus, Auction/sale was conducted on 26.05.2022 much prior to petitioner’s alleged knowledge, since the petitioner is contending that the Tahsildar informed pursuant to application dated 22.06.2022. In the present representation, it was averred that he came to know about the auction on 04.08.2022. If any illegality is committed regarding sale of confirmation of sale or issuance of sale-certificate petitioner need to be prove them by filing statutory appeal under Section 76 of the Act 1964 r/w Rule 52 (14) (vi) of the Rules 1964 before the competent authority. Petitioner failed to avail the opportunity provided by this Court. Without availing that opportunity, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition. If the petitioner is vigilant in prosecuting his remedies, Court will definitely come to his rescue. Vigilantibus non dormentibus jura subveninet, means that Court protects those who are vigilant about their rights. Petitioner, now cannot contend violation of principles of natural justice to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. In view of the discussion referred to supra, the writ petition without availing alternative remedy in the facts of this case is not maintainable and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.