APHC010039132011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 725 of 2011 Bench Sr.No:-28 [3483] M/s. A.P Co-operative Housing Societies Federation Limited Rep., by its Joint Registrar/Managing Director and another ...Appellants Vs. Sri M Seshagiri Rao and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Aravindu Maturi Advocate(s) for Respondent(s) : Mrs. S V Bharatha Lakshmi for R.1 GP for Cooperation for R.9 to R.11 CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 20th January, 2025 P C : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 23.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.14552 of 2005. 2. The petitioners (respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein) had filed the writ petition before the learned single Judge and sought a direction in the nature of Mandamus seeking release of documents which have been withheld by the 1st appellant – M/s. A.P Co-operative Housing Societies Federation Limited on account of the failure of the petitioners to clear the loan amounts at the society level. 2 HCJ & RC,J WA_725_2011 3. The learned single Judge, however, by placing reliance upon the affidavit filed by the 5th respondent in the writ petition i.e., the Divisional Co- operative Officer and the material on record, held that since the loan amounts had already been cleared at the level of the Society, there was no basis for the appellant to withhold the documents which had been submitted by the petitioners for purposes of taking the loan. The learned single Judge also recorded that the Society in fact had not remitted the amount deposited by the petitioners with the A.P Co-operative Housing Societies Federation Limited (1st appellant herein). The learned single Judge also held that the petitioners having cleared the loans at the Society level, it was for the Society to pay the said amount to the A.P Co-operative Housing Societies Federation Limited. The learned single Judge also issued directions to the respondents not to insist the petitioners for payment of any further amount. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would urge that one M. Seshagiri Rao, who is respondent No.1 herein, in fact had not cleared the loan amount and, therefore, the judgment and order to that extent needs to be modified. 5. Considering the material on record, especially the affidavit filed by the 5th respondent in the writ petition, wherein it is stated that the loan amounts had been cleared by all the petitioners and in the absence of any 3 HCJ & RC,J WA_725_2011 material placed on record by the appellants indicating that the amount in fact had not been paid by respondent No.1 in the present writ appeal, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. 6. In any case, it appears that the appeal is rendered infructuous inasmuch as documents have been released in favour of all the petitioners (respondents 1 to 6 herein). 7. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present Writ Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J Vjl