HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P. No.6014 of 2002 DATED: 26.03.2010 Between: L.G.S.Padma Rao .. Petitioner And The Manager, Andhra Bank, Vidya Nagar Branch, Nallakunta, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P. No.6014 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents not to enforce the destraint order dated 28-03-2002 issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 2. The petitioner was sponsored as a beneficiary under the Prime Minister’s Rozgar Yojana (PMRY) Scheme, under which, the 1st respondent-Andhra Bank, Nallakumta, Hyderabad, sanctioned a loan for a sum of Rs.99,000/- to establish a computer centre. The petitioner availed the loan but committed default in payment of the loan amount. The respondents initiated proceedings and issued destraint order under challenge indicating therein that the petitioner fell due a sum of Rs.1,16,000/- as on 31-12-2001, and the petitioner was called upon to pay the amount due, in default, the destraint property would be brought to the public sale. 3. Heard the Sri S.Pavan, learned counsel, representing Sri S.Surya Prakasha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Jogayya Sarma, learned counsel, representing Sri K.Purushotham, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent-bank had not issued any notice of demand, but all of a sudden in February 2002, the bank officers visited the computer centre and demanded the instalments. Thereupon the petitioner paid Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque and further undertook to pay the instalments regularly. It is, therefore, contended that the respondent-bank having accepted the same, initiated the steps for recovery of the amount under the Act. Therefore, the action of the respondents is not valid and justified. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner failed to remit the instalments due and that the cheque referred to by the petitioner had been bounced and the undertaking given by the petitioner had not been adhered to. The petitioner could not substantiate that he made the payment as claimed by him or that he adhered to the schedule of repayment of instalments. The petitioner having become a defaulter and fell in arrears in payment of the amounts borrowed by him from the 2nd respondent, the proceedings under the Act, therefore, have been rightly invoked against the petitioner for recovery of those arrears. 6. The contention that the Bank did not give demand notice before the destraint order is misconceived. The Bank in this case, invoked the provisions of the Act for realization of the amounts due and payable by the petitioner. As per Section 8 of the Act, in the matter of seizure and sale of movable property for the purpose of recovery the revenue, the process to be followed is firstly to issue a demand in writing. Therein, the Collector or other officer empowered by him should furnish to the person-employee to destrain the property, a demand in writing with the details of the arrears and such demand should be delivered to the defaulter. Secondly, the writing should set-forth that destrained property would be brought to public sale if the amount with interest, batta etc., be preciously not discharged and when the defaulter is absent, a copy of the writing should be affixed or left on the premises where the property has been destrained. In accordance with this provision, the impugned demand notice has been issued indicating the details as it contained. This being the procedure contemplated under the Act, the contention of the petitioner that the Bank did not give a demand prior to the destrain order is not acceptable. Further no provision has been brought to the notice of this Court that the bank should have issued prior demand notice before invoking the provisions of the Act. Therefore impugned destraint order does not suffer from the legal infirmity as not preceded by a demand by the Bank. No other ground has been urged to invalidate the order. 7. As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the cheque said to have been issued for a sum of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner had not been honoured. This allegation having not been traversed, the petitioner apparently suppressed this fact and approached this Court. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the order in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. 8. The Writ Petition, is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ 26th March 2010 KVR