IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3447 of 2000 Between: Mrs. M.Shalini Reddy W/o. Shri M.Ramakrishna Reddy R/o. Jubilee Hills, Plot No. 312, Road No.25. Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad. 2 Department of Company Affairs, Rep by its Registrar of COmpanies, Kendriya Sadan, Koti, Hyderabad. Dist for default as per Court Order dt.5.9.03 as against R2 .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the notice ion No. C/227/2000 dt.31.1.2000 as arbitrary, illegal, and void and consequently set aside the same since the same is violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the constitution of India and Principles of natural justice and pass such further other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.NO.3447 OF 2000 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing notice No.C/227/2000 dated 31.1.2000 as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to set aside the same, as the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and provisions of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Under the impugned order dated 31.1.2000, notice in Form-I (Distraint Order) under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864(for short ‘the Act’) was served on the petitioner stating that the Mondal Revenue Inspector, Shaikpet Mandal was authorised to distrain the property mentioned therein towards arrears of revenue due by her. Further, it is seen that the name of the defaulter was shown as Udayam Publishers Limited, represented by its Chairman Sri B.V. Satya Sai Prasad and it was addressed to the petitioner also indicating that there were arrears of land revenue due for a sum of Rs.17,84,508/- as on 24.7.1999. According to the petitioner, she resigned from the Directorship of the said Udayam Publishers Limited on 29.4.1998 and the same was recorded by the Registrar of Companies on 5.8.1999. To this effect, the petitioner also filed the particulars of entries made under the Companies Act, 1956, before the Registrar of Companies showing that she resigned on 29.4.1998 and the same was recorded on 5.8.1999. Therefore, it can be said that the respondents have issued such a notice without verifying the facts properly. When once the petitioner resigned from the Directorship and the same has been entered in the books by the Registrar of Companies, the question of her liability and issuance of the notice under the Act, does not arise. Even otherwise, a demand was raised by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour on 24.12.1999 and referred the same to the District Collector, Hyderabad District. Thus, it is clear that by that time, the petitioner was not there as a Director of the company. Therefore, the impugned notice in Form-I notice dated 31.1.2000 i.e., the Distraint order issued by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad District, is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside in sofar as the petitioner is concerned. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU,J. Date:16.07.2009. Gk/cvrk HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.NO.3447 OF 2000 Date:16.7.2009 Gk/cvrk.