HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 17736 OF 2008 DATED 11th November, 2014.
BETWEEN Syed Askari Hassan (died) per Lrs ….Petitioners And Special Deputy Tahsildar, A.P.State Financial Corporation, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar district and ors.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 17736 OF 2008.
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner (since died) was the owner of an extent of land admeasuring Ac.2.12 Gts comprised in Sy.No.99 of Nandigoan village, Kothur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District having purchased the same through registered sale deed dated 11.03.1987. The petitioner was a promoter of a Company, called as M/s. Askar Engineers Private Limited, which was established in the year 1988. The second respondent sanctioned a term loan of Rs.17.75 lakhs and a special Capital Assistance of Rs.0.95 lakhs, but out of the sanctioned term loan, only a part of amount was paid. As the said company did not fulfill its obligations, the second respondent seized the said company on 13.02.1992, however, based on the negotiations, the seizure was lifted after 33 days. While so, the second respondent initiated proceedings under Section 29 of the A.P. State Financial Corporation Act and disposed of the entire infrastructure and machinery of the said company. The first respondent issued notice on 17.01.2006 to the petitioner stating that a sum of Rs.33,91,383/- is due from the said company towards principal and interest in respect of loan account of the second respondent-Corporation. When the petitioner wanted to sell his property in the month of May, 2008, he came to know that the first respondent issued notice dated 29.03.2007 to the third respondent stating that some amount was outstanding from the account of the petitioner and therefore the property of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.2.12 Gts in Sy.No. 99 of Nandigoan village is identified for attachment and action is pending against the same. The first respondent further requested the third respondent not to entertain any sort of transfer or alienation of the said property. The said proceedings of the first respondent dated 29.03.2007 are challenged in this Writ Petition.
The second respondent sought to justify his action stating that the communication is only a request and it is not an obligation on the part of the third respondent to comply with the said request. The respondent-Corporation filed OP.No.1 of 2008 under Section 31(1)(a)(a) of State Financial Corporation Act against the properties of guarantors and promoters, directors and the petitioner, who is also one of the parties to the said proceedings. However, the present Writ Petition is directed against the communication of the first respondent dated 29.03.2007 addressed to the third respondent. Obviously, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to issue such communication under the Registration Act, 1908. The second respondent also stated in the counter affidavit that it is only a request, but not a direction to the third respondent.
In view of what is stated in the counter affidavit, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the communication dated 29.03.2007 of the first respondent addressed to the third respondent. However, this order will not prevent the first and second respondents from taking appropriate action in respect of the properties of the petitioner in accordance with law, if they are so advised.
The Writ Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 11th November, 2014. Msnrx