HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1303 OF 2014 DATED:21.10.2014 Between:
Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation Rep. by its Managing Director Chirag Ali Lane Hyderabad and another … Appellants And B. Mohan Vamsi and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1303 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) After going through the records, we are of the view that this matter need not be kept pending for service of notice as the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners is present.
The writ petition was filed for the following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring as illegal and arbitrary, the letter of the 2nd respondent issued in Ref. No:AFC/VSP/MR & R/MAW/2006- 07/5306 and 5307 dated 08.01.2007 and issue consequential directions to the respondents not to take any coercive steps pursuant to letter Ref.
No:AFC/VSP/MR&R/MAW/2006-07/5306 and 5307 dated 08.01.2007.”
In the body of the writ petition, to challenge the aforesaid notice it is merely mentioned that action of the second respondent in invoking provisions of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act is unwarranted and illegal. It is not stated that the respondent does not have any power to issue such a notice. Even allegation to challenge the same is vague and bald. However, this notice challenged, was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant on 20.11.2010 during the pendency of the writ petition. We are of the view that perhaps the learned trial Judge was not assisted properly to adjudge the effect of withdrawal of the same. While so, entire exercise was undertaken by His Lordship ascertaining the alleged dues payable by the writ petitioner to the appellants. We think that such an exercise was unwarranted and uncalled for. The Writ Court while entertaining the writ petition cannot decide the issue of dues and outstanding. It is question of fact. When the notice was withdrawn, no cause survived for adjudication. The learned trial Judge has therefore not decided the matter properly and more particularly, the decision has been rendered ignoring the letter of withdrawal. We therefore set aside the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge. The parties will be free to take steps in accordance with law as may be advised for establishing their claims and contentions before the appropriate forum.
The writ appeal is accordingly allowed.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 21.10.2014
bnr