IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17427 of 2003 Between: Sri Ramisetty Chittaiah S/o. R. Surya Rao, R/o. Gollaprolu Village & Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Indian Bank, Rep. by its Charirman cum Managing Director, 31 Rajaji Street, Chennai - 600 01. 2 The Reserve Bank Of India, Rep. by its Governor, Central Office, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai - 400 01. 3 The Ministry of Finance, Rep. by its Secretary, Government of India, new Delhi - 110 001. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, holding the actions of the first and second respondents in not taking action as per the letter of the Honorable minister for Finance in D.O. No. 11/139/2001-IF-11 dated 08- 05-02 that was addressed to the Honorable minister for Defence, Government of India as illegal as illegal arbitrary and against all principles of fair play and natural justice and consequently direct the 1st Respondents to implement the decision of the 3rd Respondent as reported and communicated to the 4th Respondent as contained in the said D.O. No. 11/139/2001-IF-11 dated 08-05-02 that was addressed to the Honorable minister for Defence, Government of India Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SIVARAJU SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner availed medium term loan of Rs.80,310/- and crop loan of Rs.18,000/- from the 1st respondent Bank. Consequent on his failure to liquidate the liability, the 1st respondent Bank filed O.S.No.3 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram, for recovery of Rs.2,92,172.90ps. on 09.02.1990. The suit ended in decree. The petitioner filed A.S.No.365 of 1992 on the file of this Court and the said appeal ended in dismissal, thereby the judgment passed in O.S.No.3 of 1990 reached finality. It appears the 1st respondent Bank filed E.P.No.2 of 1995 for realization of the decretal amount. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted representations to the 1st respondent Bank claiming certain concessions issued by the Central Government. There being no positive action from the respondents with regard to granting of certain reliefs on the loan availed by him, he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order, more particularly, one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, holding the actions of the first and second respondents in not taking action as per the letter of the Honorable Minister for Finance in D.O. No. 11/139/2001-IF-11 dated 08-05-02 that was addressed to the Honorable Minister for Defence, Government of India, as illegal as illegal, arbitrary and against all principles of fair play and natural justice and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to implement the decision of the 3rd Respondent as reported and communicated to the 4th Respondent as contained in the said D.O. No. 11/139/2001-IF-11 dated 08-05-02 that was addressed to the Honorable minister for Defence, Government of India.” 2. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 29.08.2003. An interim order also came to be passed on the even date vide WPMP No.21684 of 2003, which reads as hereunder: “In view of the fact that first respondent has agreed in principle to charge only simple interest @ 12.5% per annum on the medium term loan and crop loan advanced to the petitioner, it is directed that the first respondent shall undertake necessary calculations and arrive at a conclusion as to amount, if any, to be refunded to the petitioner. It shall also be open to the petitioner to submit a statement in this regard. This interim order is passed duly taking into account the letter addressed by Finance Minister dt.8.5.2002. The action shall be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 3. First respondent filed counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, 1st respondent admitted that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.77,946/- . Para.16 of the counter-affidavit needs to be noted and it reads as follows: “16. In the light of the said directives of the said letter dt.14.06.2002, the bank calculated the interest again, taking into consideration the violations in charging the interest, as pointed out by the R.B.I. in the said letter. As per the calculation, the amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.77,946.” 4. In view of the counter-affidavit averments, an order came to be passed by this Court on 05.01.2004 directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.77,947/- along with interest from the date they were liable to pay, within a period of two weeks. The order passed on 05.01.2004 in WPMP No.32138 of 2003 reads as hereunder: “There shall be interim direction, directing the respondents to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.77,947/- (Seventy Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Forty seven only) along with interest, from the date they were liable to pay, within a period of two weeks from today. Post the writ petition for final hearing after summer vacation, 2004.” 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit to the extent of about Rs.1,80,000/- and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the respondents to return the said amount. 7. The petitioner has not placed on record any calculation in support of his claim with regard to return of about Rs.1,80,000/- Basing on the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, a direction has already been given to the respondents to return a sum of Rs.77,947/-. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the respondents have returned Rs.77,947/- to the petitioner. If the petitioner claims any more amount, he has to submit his representation detailing the calculations in support of his claim. In such event, the respondents have to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the circulars or guidelines in force. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:17th July, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}