IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 20385 of 2008 Between: M.Ramakrishna S/o.(late) Narayudu R/o. Plot No.15, Hanuman Nagar, New Boinapalli, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner and Director of Marketing, First Floor, R.K. Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and in connection with the orders passed by the Honourable Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No.2609/2003 with VMA.No.482/2004 dated 19.4.2007 and to quash the said orders as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also the violation of the House Building Advance Rules duly allowing the O.A. after setting aside the orders issued by the Respondent in No. Unit.XI/B/1783/96, dated 30-5-2002 and the orders of the Assistant Director of Marketing in Unit No.7(4)603/2002, dated 19.4.2003 for ﬁxing 79 installments and the consequential orders passed by the Respondent in Memo No.D.S(1)1783/96 dated 9.5.2007 directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.42,865-50 and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 20385 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J.) This Writ Petition is ﬁled challenging the order dated 19.4.2007 passed in O.A.No.2609 of 2003 with VMA.No.482 of 2004, by virtue of which, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. holding that the petitioner, being surety to the loan advanced to one K.V.J.Chainulu towards house building, is liable to pay an amount of Rs.85,731/- together with interest thereon. The petitioner ﬁled the above O.A. challenging the proceedings No.Unit.XI/B/1783/96, dated 30.5.2002 issued by the respondent herein, by which he was asked to pay Rs.85,731/- for having stood as surety to one K.V.J. Chainulu. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the loan sanctioned to K.V.J. Chainulu is in violation of House Building Advance Rules and therefore, the respondent cannot recover the unpaid loan amount from the petitioner being the surety. The petitioner has ﬁled a representation with the respondent authorities for conducting a detailed enquiry stating that when the loan sanctioned to K.V.J.Chainulu is not in accordance with the Rules, the petitioner is not responsible to re-pay the same even if it is not paid by said K.V.J.Chainulu. Opposing the O.A., the respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit stating that under Rule-6 of the House Building Advance rules, the liability of the surety will continue till the house/ﬂat built/purchased is mortgaged to Government or till the advance together with the interest due thereon is re-paid to Government, whichever is earlier. It is averred that the said K.V.J.Chainulu neither mortgaged his house nor paid the house building advance and is due a sum of Rs.85,731/- together with interest to the department, and the petitioner having executed the surety bond for the loan granted to K.V.J.Chainulu, is bound to pay the remaining loan amount. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the O.A. holding that as the petitioner stood as a surety, he is bound to re-pay the loan amount when it is not paid by K.V.J.Chainulu. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Service-I. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the contentions advanced before the Tribunal, contended that several irregularities were committed by the respondent authorities while sanctioning the loan to K.V.J.Chainulu. It is contended that while K.V.J.Chainulu, was in service, the respondent has not eﬀected any recovery and when he was dismissed from service on account of unauthorized absence, the respondent initiated the proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the unpaid loan amount. Even otherwise, the respondent ought to have shared the liability of loan amount equally as the loan is granted contrary to the Rules, and the petitioner cannot be held liable for the entire amount. Admittedly, the petitioner stood as a surety to the house building loan advanced by the respondent to one K.V.J.Chainulu, who worked as Sub-Editor, for construction of a house and when the said loan amount has not been paid, the unpaid amount was sought to be recovered from the petitioner being surety, vide proceedings No.Unit.XI/B/1783/96, dated 30.5.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner ﬁled the O.A.No.2609 of 2003 with VMA.No.482 of 2004. It is the settled proposition of law that the liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal borrower. The petitioner having executed a surety bond for the loan amount obtained by one K.V.J.Chainulu, is liable to pay the remaining loan amount. Further, the condition in the surety bond executed by the petitioner stipulates that ‘the obligation undertaken by the Surety shall not be discharged or in any way aﬀected by an extension of time or any other indulgence granted by the Government to the said Borrower’. Such being the condition, the petitioner is liable to pay the remaining loan amount. In fact, the Government, by its proceedings dated 9.12.2005 ordered for recovery of the loan amount of Rs.85,731/- in two equal shares of Rs.42,865.50 ps. each, one from the petitioner and the other from one P.Gopal Swamy, Deputy Executive Engineer, who is said to have issued the Utilization Certiﬁcate without physical veriﬁcation of construction of the house to K.V.J.Chainulu. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J. September 18, 2008 Tsr. Copy to: 1. The Commissioner and Director of Marketing, First Floor, R.K. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The G.P. for Services-I, High Court Buildings, High Court, Hyderabad (OUT). 3. Two C.D. Copies