IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 3431 of 2008 Between: M/s. Narayana Mining Company, a partnership firm, rep. by its Managing Partner A.Vengaiah S/o. late Sundaraiah R/o.D.No.1/401, Malavyanagar, Gudur, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Bank of India, rep. by its Executive Director, Koti, Hyderabad. 2 State Bank of India, rep. by its Regional Manager, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3 State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Gudur, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Letter No. DBD dt. 11.1.2008, addressed to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent demanding to pay Rs.17.00 lakhs as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to principles of natural justice, barred by res judicata and also violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and set aside the same and consequently suspend the said letter and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A. Venkateswarlu Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M. Narender Reddy The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition has been instituted questioning the communication dated 11th January 2008, through which, the 3rd respondent – Bank had informed the writ petitioner that its proposal for one time settlement of dues has been considered by the bank and that it is willing to have the dues settled, subject to the condition of the writ petitioner paying a sum of Rs.18 lacs. The communication has also brought out that Rs.1 lac which the writ petitioner paid to show his bona fides has, in fact, been deposited in “No Lien Account” and that if the remaining balance of Rs.17 lacs is paid within a month from the date of receipt of the communication, the outstanding dues can be liquidated. However, pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court on 21st February 2008, directing the writ petitioner to deposit Rs.10,33,102/- within a period of six weeks, he could deposit a further sum of Rs.6 lacs on 29th March 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bank has earlier instituted recovery proceedings, O.A.No. 323 of 2002 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and that the said Tribunal has passed a decree on 29th August 2003. The learned counsel submits that the writ petitioner is interested in liquidating the liability by complying with the decree passed in O.A.No. 323 of 2002 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. In these set of circumstances, it is open to the respondents to execute the decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in O.A.No.323 of 2002 for the purpose of liquidating the liability of the writ petitioner. It is needless to observe that the amounts deposited by the petitioner, such as Rs.1 lac, a reference of which is made to in the communication dated 11th January 2008 and Rs.6 lacs, which is said to have been deposited on 29th March 2008, in pursuance of the interlocutory order passed by this Court in this writ petition, shall be given credit to, while liquidating the liability of the petitioner. With this, the writ petition stands disposed, but however, without costs. ----------------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 11th April 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}