According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner obtained a housing loan from S.1400, Salem Ponnampettai Cooperative Housing Society for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- by mortgaging the petitioner's property. At first, the petitioner had been paying the monthly instalments for the loan regularly. But the petitioner stopped the payments from the year 2005 since the instalments for the year 2003 and 2004 were not credited into the loan account. From the year 2003, the society officials and the President of the society had come to the petitioner's house and collected the instalment amounts. Only when the petitioner approached the society in the month of January 2005, it came to know that the payment entries were not made from the year 2003. Then, the Secretary informed that the payments had not been credited into the loan account and therefore the petitioner should make payments once again for the same period. Immediately, the petitioner made a representation to the third respondent on 30.11.2005 to furnish the particulars about the payments and details of dues with interest. Not giving the same, the third respondent replied on 03.12.2005 stating that not to make any payment of instalments to anybody without obtaining society receipt. While being so, on 14.11.2005, the first respondent had issued a notice for sale of the mortgaged property in Form No.9 under Rule 126(2) of the Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 on the basis of a decree said to have been obtained by the third respondent, wherein the date of auction was fixed as 24.12.2005. Then, the petitioner requested the third respondent to furnish a copy of the decree. Since no notice was served on the petitioner before passing the decree, the petitioner filed a petition before the third respondent on 07.12.2005 in this regard. Not receiving any reply, the petitioner again made a representation dated 14.12.2005. But, the third respondent did not take any action to consider the said representation. Without issuing the decree copy, the impugned notice has been issued by the first respondent. It is to be noted that without a copy of the award, the petitioner is deprived of filing an appeal before the competent authority. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the notice dated 14.11.2005 and to direct the third respondent to issue a copy of the award.
2. The learned Government Advocate, on instruction, would submit that a copy of the award has been served to the petitioner wherein the signature has also been obtained. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is not acceptable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
3. Now, a copy of the award has been served to the petitioner by the learned Government Advocate. But, the signature in the award is disputed by the petitioner. As this court cannot go into the disputed fact, in view of the provisions under Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, the petitioner has to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
4. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is apparent that if the petitioner files an application for condoning the delay along with the appeal, the appellate court shall consider the above application by excluding the delay caused due to pendency of the writ petition before this Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.