M/S. Shivaramdas Board ... vs A.P. State Financial Corp Rep By ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3044 Tel

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

                 WRIT APPEAL No.1110 OF 2008
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

       Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner.

       None has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

2.     This intra court appeal is filed against the order dated

29.01.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by

which Writ Petition No.29911 of 1997 preferred by the appellant

has been dismissed.

3.     Facts

giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that

the appellant availed of the financial assistance from the erstwhile

Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation and failed to repay

the amount of loan to the Corporation. Thereupon, it appears in

exercise of powers under Section 29 of the State Financial

Corporation Act, 1951, the unit of the appellant was seized.

According to the appellant, the Corporation colluded with

respondent No.3 and transferred the unit belonging to the appellant ::2::

for a paltry sum. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant

was kept in dark and the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Financial

Corporation has entered into a secret transaction with respondent

No.3 in respect of sale of unit belonging to the appellant.

4. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in which the

following relief was sought:

"It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in transferring the ownership of the unit of the petitioner to the 3rd respondent towards a loan amount of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal and malafide and consequently set aside the sale of the unit of the petitioner by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents corporation to act in accordance with law and enable the petitioner to repay the loan amount while protecting the unit of the petitioner from being sold to the 3rd respondent and grant such other relief as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".

5. It is pertinent to note that despite service of notice in the said

writ petition, neither anyone appeared on behalf of respondent

Nos.1 and 2 nor any counter affidavit was filed. Even though

respondent No.3 was represented by counsel, yet the counter

affidavit could not be filed.

::3::

6. The learned Single Judge however by an order dated

29.01.2007 inter alia held that since no interim order was granted

by the Court while admitting the petition and thereby by efflux of

time, the auction/sale in favour of respondent No.3 must have been

confirmed and therefore no further orders at this length of time can

be passed. The learned Single Judge therefore dismissed the writ

petition with the liberty to the appellant to approach the civil Court

for appropriate relief.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the

learned Single Judge erred in not deciding the writ petition

preferred by the appellant on merits and relegating the appellant to

civil Court.

8. We have considered the submissions made by learned Senior

Counsel for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the

respondents even before us. The learned Single Judge ought to

have appreciated that the averment made in the writ petition that

the unit belonging to the appellant has been sold for a paltry

amount and in collusion with respondent No.3 by the officers

of respondent Nos.1 and 2, was not controverted. The learned ::4::

Single Judge therefore ought to have appreciated that confirmation

of sale if any which took place during the pendency of the petition

was subject to outcome of the petition and the petition could not

have been dismissed without adjudicating the controversy on

merits merely on the ground that no order of stay was granted

while admitting the writ petition.

9. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order is

set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge.

The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the writ petition on

merits expeditiously.

10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. There shall be

no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 10.10.2023

Lrkm/Myk