IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26492 of 2008 Between: M/s. Varalakshmi Modern Rice Mill Rep by its Proprietor Sri Adari Narasingarao, S/o. Late Appalanaidu, R/o. Thimmarajupeta, Atchutapuram Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union Bank of India,a body corporate under the Banking companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, Marg, Narmain Point, Mumbai-400 021, INter-alia a branch M/s. Union Bank of India, S.S.I. Finance Branch at 12-4-32, 1st Floor, Chandu's plaza, Apsara Road, Visakhapatnam - 530 002 Andhra Pradesh 2 Smt. Saragadam Manikyam, W/o. Lakshmana, R/o. Timmarajupeta, Atchutapuram Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Sri Sarangadam Lakshmana, S/o. Kannayya, R/o. Timmarajupeta, Atchutapuram Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Smt. Adari Lakshmi, W/o. Narasingarao, R/o. Timmarajupeta, Atchutapuram Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. .....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 to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and calling for the records from the Debts Recovery Tribunal Visakhapatnam and quash the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Visakhapatnam dt. 21-10-2008 in I.A. No. 452/2008 in OA No. 3/2005 and to allow the petitioner's application in IA No. 452/2008 in OA No. 3/005 and to appoint Advocate - Commissioner to note down the physical features of the M/s. Varalakshmi Modern Rice Mills, Atchuthapuram after break open the locks put to the Rice Mill by the 1st respondent or to pass any other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The petitioner who is a borrower had filed an interim application in I.A.No. 452 of 2008 in O.A.No.3 of 2005 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam praying that an Advocate Commissioner be appointed to break open the locks of the doors of M/s Varalakshmi Modern Rice Mill which had been sealed by the respondent-Bank. The said application has been rejected and being aggrieved by the order of rejection, this petition has been filed. Upon perusal of the impugned order and upon hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, we find that the present petitioner- borrower wants to record the condition of the Rice Mill, because, according to the petitioner, the Rice Mill had been sealed and locked by the respondent-Bank. Upon perusal of the impugned order and the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Bank, we find that the Bank had never sealed or locked the Mill and, therefore, the Tribunal was not inclined to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner and ultimately, in our opinion, the Tribunal rightly did not pass any order with regard to appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner. It was the case of the respondent-Bank that as the Mill has not been sealed or locked by the Bank, it was always open to the petitioner- borrower to open the lock. However, it has been clarified by the respondent-Bank that the goods had been hypothecated in favour of the respondent-Bank and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to deal with the said goods, which were hypothecated in favour of the respondent- Bank. In our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in not passing any order for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner. It is for the petitioner to decide whether to open the locks or not. It appears that the Mill had been locked only by the petitioner and not by the Bank. Perhaps, the petitioner is keen to have an evidence with regard to the condition of the Mill. Be that as it may, the Tribunal was not obliged to appoint any Advocate- Commissioner, and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly did not pass any order in favour of the petitioner. We do not see any substance in the petition and the petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th December, 2008. GRR