THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 10407 of 2002 Dated: 20-4-2010 Between: P.Satynarayana Reddy …Petitioner and The Mandal Revenue Officer, Munugodu Mandal, Nalgonda District and another …Respondents Oral order: This writ petition has been instituted, calling in question the notice issued in form No. 4 dated 14-5-2002 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Munugodu Mandal, Nalgonda District demanding the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. Earlier thereto, on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Andhra Pradesh Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad a legal notice was issued to the petitioner herein along with four others pointing out that the petitioner herein has applied to the 2nd respondent-Corporation for a loan for purchasing Rig unit machinery for the purpose of digging bore wells under Hire purchase scheme. Accordingly the 2nd respondent- Corporation has sanctioned a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the writ petitioner towards loan by way of supply of machinery under the Hire purchase agreement. Accordingly, a Hire purchase agreement has been entered on 8-12-1977 by the writ petitioner as hirer under the said agreement and one Bonda Damodar Reddy s/o Venkatanarasimha Reddy, resident of Narkatpally, Nalgonda District as a surety. The first of the instalments due under the Hire purchase agreement was payable on 1-1-1979 and subsequent instalments fall due with an interval of six months. Since the writ petitioner has committed default in making the necessary payments, a notice dated 29-3-1982 terminating the Hire purchase agreement was issued, directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,736-94 due as on that date, being the amount outstanding and required to be paid to the 2nd respondent-Corporation after giving credit to the amount already paid. Since the petitioner has not responded to the said notice dated 5-1-1990, the 2nd respondent-Corporation has approached the Mandal Revenue Officer who issued the impugned demand notice. What has been issued to the writ petitioner is only a notice calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.1,19,000/-. Instead of showing satisfactory cause to the said notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, he has approached this Court and instituted this writ petition. While entertaining the writ petition on 13-6-2002, this Court directed the writ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- within eight weeks period and suspended the operation of the demand notice issued by the 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, the Liquidator of the said Corporation filed a detailed affidavit in the matter pointing out that the writ petitioner was found due and payable a sum of Rs.1,19,800/- as on 31-12-1992 and since he has failed to remit the said amount, a demand notice was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in terms of Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. He has further pointed out that after giving credit to the entire amount paid by the petitioner towards instalments, still the writ petitioner was found due and payable huge sums of money and hence impugned demand notice has been issued. In page 4 of the counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent, it was pointed out that the machinery was seized as per the terms and conditions of the Hire purchase agreement and the same was sold and after adjusting the amount so realised from the auction, the petitioner herein was found due and payable in a sum of Rs.1,19,800/- as on 31-12-1992. The learned counsel for the petitioner is fair enough in stating that the writ petitioner has not been giving any instructions to him as to whether he has paid the sum of Rs.60,000/- as ordered by this Court on 13-6-2002 or not and when an equitable order has been passed by this Court and if the petitioner has failed to comply with the same he cannot seek any further equitable relief from this Court. The terms and conditions, subject to which he is liable to be proceeded against under the Hire purchase agreement, do fall under contractual obligations undertaken by the writ petitioner. The validity or otherwise of the amount demanded either by the 2nd respondent or as demanded by the 1st respondent cannot be made the subject matter of this writ petition for adjudication, inasmuch as any such determination requires gathering of evidence. The most appropriate course for the writ petitioner could have been to institute a civil suit, if he is raising any dispute with regard to his obligation to clear the balance amount of Rs.1,19,800/- as demanded by the 1st respondent in the notice. Further, on the other hand, if he is not disputing his liability to pay this much of money to the 2nd respondent-Corporation, he is bound, in law, to respond to the notice issued by the 1st respondent and demonstrate as to how the money demanded by the 1st respondent is not liable to be paid by him. The demand notice therefore, cannot straightaway be put in issue. For the failure to avail the opportunities as have been accorded to the writ petitioner by both the respondents 1 and 2 herein as well as this Court, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Hence this writ petition is dismissed. But however, without costs. __________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 20th April, 2010 GRR