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. 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. 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 amount is sustainable and whether the payments made to the 5th respondent would constitute a valid discharge for the liability as fixed against the 2nd respondent?” There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner’s husband was the President of the Society at the relevant point of time and she had obtained the said loan for the purpose of construction of house. It is only after the 2nd respondent came to know about the non-existence of the house and also the site, proceedings have been initiated under Section 51 and followed by Section 60 of the Act against the petitioner and her husband jointly. There is also no serious dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner gave a statement on 17.11.1997 before the Enquiry Officer. According to the 2nd respondent, she paid the amount of Rs.60,000/- in two instalments as she failed make any construction of the house. However, she stated that she paid a sum of Rs.6,768/- and further agreed to pay the balance of the loan amount within a period of six months. The contention of the petitioner is that the statement is being misread and payments made by the petitioner is only with regard to the substantial amounts due, but not the outstanding amount and no liability can be fastened on her. Though there is no serious dispute with regard to the payment of amount of Rs.6,768/-, but the petitioner state that she has paid substantial amounts to the 5th respondent i.e., Rs.25,000/- on 4.2.2003 and Rs.63,340/- on 18.2.2003. The said payments are being made to the 5th respondent which is a Co-operative Federation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that any payment made to the 5th respondent can as well be equal to the payment to the 2nd respondent and therefore, there is a valid discharge. In support of it, the petitioner sought to place reliance on certain conditions which show that the amounts can as well be paid to the 5th respondent. In support of it, the petitioner sought to place reliance on certain conditions which show that the amounts can as well be paid to the 5th respondent. Therefore, he contended that all such payments made to the 5th respondent can be treated as the payments to the 2nd respondent. There is no dispute on the part of the petitioner that the liability ultimately has fixed and imposed in proceedings under Section 60 of the Act is only in favour of the 2nd respondent, the primary society and not as against the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent nowhere figures in the proceedings nor it is an authority before any such proceedings. Surcharge proceedings by the primary authority and as confirmed in the appeal by the appellate authority reiterates the liability of the petitioner only to the 2nd respondent. Except placing reliance on the note of the annexure to the agreement, no other valid reasons are forthcoming on behalf of the petitioner. When liability is fixed as against the 2nd respondent, there is no reason coming forth on behalf of the petitioner that as to why the said payment was made to the 5th respondent at any point of time. There is no such direction at any level by the authorities concerned or even by the appellate authority much less this Court to make any such payments in favour of the 5th respondent. Any internal arrangements between the 2nd respondent and the 5th respondent on administrative side would not in any way entitle the petitioner to claim any such payment as valid one or entitles her to make such direct payments to the 5th respondent avoiding the 2nd respondent. It is also curious to note that there is no reason forthcoming on behalf of the petitioner as to why no such payments were made to the 2nd respondent. it is the case of the petitioner that when such offer was made, the same is being refused or declined in any manner by the 2nd respondent and therefore, the petitioner having no other alternative had to deposit with the 5th respondent. In the absence of any of these reasons, there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner to claim payments to the 5th respondent and plead a discharge. In the absence of any of these reasons, there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner to claim payments to the 5th respondent and plead a discharge. The obligation arisen there under in pursuance of the loan transaction as entered into between the petitioner and the society is a valid one and therefore, the petitioner is fully bound by the obligation as that arise in pursuance of the terms and conditions there under. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any valid payment made by the petitioner in favour of the 2nd respondent not there is any such valid discharge.” 7. The contention agitated in the writ petition is that inspite repaying the entire loan amount the property was put up for sale/auction. The similar contention was raised in the W.P.No.15296 of 2002 and his Lordships has answered in the following manner, “Any internal arrangements between Koduru Rural Co-operative Society and Special Cadre Dy. Registrar/Regional Manager, A.P.Co-operative Housing Federation, who are arrayed as respondents 2 and 5, on administrative side would not any way entitle the petitioner to claim any such payment as valid one or entitle her to make such direct payments to Dy.Registrar/Regional Manager, A.P.Co-operative Housing Federation, avoiding the Koduru Co-operative Society” and further observed in the order that there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner to claim payments to Dy.Registrar/Regional Manager, A.P.Co-operative Housing Federation and a plead a discharge. 8. Respondent No.6 Society has taken an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition stating that issues raised in the writ petition have been raised and answered in W.P.No.15296 of 2002 decision dated 23.11.2004 the claims raised in the present writ petition stood already decided. And the same has become final as the intra Court appeal filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution against the order in W.P.No.15296 of 2002 and further contended no relief can be granted in the present writ petition as already was decided and negatived the contentions raised by the petitioner and no wrong is committed in issuing Form-9. 9. As seen from the order, dated 23.11.2004 in W.P.No.15296 of 2002, the essential contentions raised by the petitioner herein in the present writ petition have been answered and delivered in the aforesaid writ petition. Hence, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 9. As seen from the order, dated 23.11.2004 in W.P.No.15296 of 2002, the essential contentions raised by the petitioner herein in the present writ petition have been answered and delivered in the aforesaid writ petition. Hence, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.