M/S Vijay Silk Mills vs M/S Archid Plywood Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 3530 Tel

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                      AND
          THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


                I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 4 of 2022
                          in/and
               WRIT APPEAL No.425 of 2022

JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



     Heard Mr. B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior

Counsel    appearing         for     the       appellant.         Also    heard

Mr. Prabhakar Peri, learned counsel for respondent No.1;

and Mr. M.Hamsa Raj, learned counsel for respondent No.2

- Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation.

2. This appeal has been preferred along with a leave

application assailing the legality and validity of the final

order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge

dismissing W.P.No.5969 of 2007 filed by respondent No.1

as the writ petitioner in which respondent No.2 was the

sole respondent.

3. Though an implead petition was filed by the

appellant, the same was not entertained by the learned

Single Judge in view of dismissal of the writ petition.

4. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant submits that stricto sensu appellant is not

aggrieved by the outcome of the related writ petition, but is

aggrieved by the observations made by the learned Single

Judge in paragraph 20 of the final order dated 14.03.2022,

which reads as under:

"20. In view of the above proposition of law, the Corporation being a Government Undertaking should endeavour to see that the best price for the subject property is realized by way of auction or calling for open tenders giving adequate publicity."

5. On going through the same, we find that learned

Single Judge had opined that respondent No.2, being a

Government Undertaking, should endeavour to see that the

best price for the subject property is realized by way of

auction or calling for open tenders giving adequate

publicity.

6. Learned Senior Counsel contends that appellant had

submitted a proposal for One Time Settlement (OTS) before

the second respondent and such observation of the learned

Single Judge will come in the way of consideration of the

proposal submitted by the appellant.

7. At this stage, Mr. Hamsa Raj, learned counsel for

respondent No.2, submits that OTS proposal of the

appellant was rejected way back on 28.03.2017.

8. We may mention that the subject matter of the

related writ petition was public auction of schedule

property which took place as far back as in the year 2003.

At this distant point of time we are not inclined to resurrect

the same. Writ petitioner i.e., respondent No.1 who had

challenged the auction has not filed appeal. In any case,

we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by

the learned Single Judge.

9. Writ appeal and the interlocutory applications are

accordingly dismissed.

10. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J 07.07.2022 vs