Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S Sionc Pharmaceuticals Pvt. ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 July, 2021
Bench: A V Sai
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No. 6911 OF 2021
ORDER:
Heard Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri J.Ugranarasimha, learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents 2 to 4, apart from perusing the material
available on record.
2. Alleging inaction on the part of the respondents 2 to
4 in incorporating the name of the petitioner in respect of Plot
Nos.25 and 25A, admeasuring Acs.2.36 cents and Acs.1.26
cents, situated at Thanam village, Parawada Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District and inaction in granting plan of
approval for expansion, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. According to the petitioner, in E-auction conducted
by Syndicate Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioner herein purchased plot
No.25 of the aforesaid village and mandal of an extent of
Acs.2.36 cents for a sale consideration of Rs.7,18,00,000/-
under a registered sale deed dated 28.07.2016. It is further
stated that the petitioner herein purchased plot No.25A, which
is an adjoining part of the same village and mandal from
M/s.Ramky Pharma City (India) Limited for a sale consideration
of Rs.85,37,760/- under a registered sale deed dated
24.05.2017. It is further stated that pursuant to the above said
sales, the petitioner herein came into possession of the total
extent of Acs.3.62 cents covered by plot Nos.25 and 25A. It is
further stated that the petitioner herein, with an intention to
expand the new production plants, made an application for
approval of the building plans on 09.06.2020 to the
respondents and the petitioner herein also obtained permission
from various agencies. The Police Commissioner,
Visakhapatnam City, on the basis of the remarks submitted by
the 4th respondent herein, directed the petitioner herein to
comply with the objections pointed out by the 4th respondent.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only
reason for the respondents in not incorporating the name of the
petitioner against the subject survey plots is non-payment of
the property tax arrears by the earlier owner prior to the sale of
the property in favour of the petitioner herein on 11.07.2016.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said
reason is highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Southern Power Distribution
Company of Telangana Limited, Through its CMD and others Vs.
Gopal Agarwal and others1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, at
paragraph No.6, held as follows:
"6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties and we are of the opinion that there is no
reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.
The High Court relied upon the judgment in Isha Marbles
(supra) to grant relief to the First Respondent. It was held
in the said judgment that an auction purchaser cannot be
called upon to clear the past arrears. It was also held that
a power connection to an auction purchaser cannot be
withheld for the dues of the past owner. The High Court
(2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 644
also referred to a judgment in Ahmedabad Electricity
Company Limited(supra) wherein the ratio of the
judgment in Isha Marbles case was reiterated,
particularly with reference to a fresh connection for
supply of electricity. In NESCO v. Raghunath Paper Mills
(P) Ltd., (2012) 13 SCC 479, the purchaser in an auction
sale conducted by the official liquidator on "as is where
is" and "whatever there is" basis was found not liable for
payment of the electricity arrears. In the said case an
advertisement was issued by the official liquidator for sale
of moveable and immoveable property of M/s Konark
Paper and Industries Limited on "as is where is" and
whatever there is" basis. The auction purchaser applied
for a fresh electricity connection to its unit which was
denied on the ground of non-payment of arrears by the
past owner. After considering the judgments in
Ahmedabad Electricity Company (supra) and Isha
Marbles (supra), this Court held that the request of the
auction purchaser for a fresh connection could not have
been rejected. "
4. In the above background, the grievance of the
petitioner is that despite the said legal position, the respondent-
authorities are insisting on payment of the property tax arrears
which fell due anterior to the sale affected in favour of the
petitioner herein. It is also required to be noted that on
17.12.2020, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation
to the respondents 2 to 4 for reddressal of his grievance in the
above said background and no action has been taken so far.
5. As the petitioner herein submitted a representation
on 17.12.2020 before the respondents 2 to 4, this Court deems
it appropriate to dispose of the present Writ Petition with a
direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to take appropriate action/
pass appropriate orders on the said representation dated
17.12.2020 submitted by the petitioner herein, as expeditiously
as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also open for the
petitioner herein to make available the judgments rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court before the respondent-authorities.
6. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ
Petition shall stand closed.
_____________
A.V.SESHA SAI, J
24.07.2021
siva
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No. 6911 OF 2021
24.07.2021
siva
