IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 550 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 14/02/2008 in WP No: 8489 of 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Lakshmi Rice Mill Rep by its Prop. M.Venkateswara Rai, S/o. Musalaiah, Manduvavaripalem, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. ... APPELLANT AND 1) The Senior Branch M'anager, A.P.State Financial Corporation, 1st Lane, Bhagyanagar, Ongole, Prakasham District. 2) The Managing Director, A.P. State Financial Corporation, Chirag ALi Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. 3) M/s.Omega Aqua Nutrients Pvt.Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Saji Sabastine,S/o.K.V.John, R/o.35-3-69, 4th Lane, Bhagyanagar, Ongole, Prakasham District. 4) M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, rep. by its Branch Manager Ongole Branch, Ongole, Prakasam District. 5) Kakumani Satyanarayana S/o. Seshaiah R/o Darakanipadu Village, Gudluru Mandal, Prakasam District ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.T.P.ACHARYA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.: MR.M. VIDYASAGAR Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR.P. VENUGOPAL Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR. A. KRISHNAM RAJU Counsel for Respondent No.5: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: Oral Judgment: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8489 of 2002, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner. 2. It is not in dispute that the appellant – original petitioner had borrowed money from respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of running his business. The amount borrowed along with interest thereon was not paid to the creditor – A.P. State Financial Corporation for considerably long period and, therefore, proceedings had been initiated under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short, ‘the Act’). Ultimately, the land as well as the machinery, which are subject matter of this appeal, had been sold to respondent No.3 by holding an auction. Before holding the auction, the details with regard to the land and machinery had been duly published in a leading vernacular newspaper “Eenadu” so as to invite offers in respect of the said property. The property had been ultimately sold in favour of respondent No.3 and respondent No.3, in turn, has also sold the property in question to respondent No.5. 3. At this stage the petition was filed by the original petitioner – debtor raising several objections. 4. It is not in dispute that the amount, which had been borrowed in 1993, has not been repaid till today. The property had been seized by the respondent – creditor in 1996, but in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No.878 of 2000 enabling the petitioner to have the advantage of paying the borrowed amount under a one-time settlement scheme, the proceedings had been dropped. As the appellant – petitioner did not avail the opportunity, the proceedings had been once again initiated for sale of the property and ultimately the property has been sold for Rs.6,50,000/- to respondent No.3. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that due opportunity was not given to the appellant – petitioner so as to repay the amount borrowed by him along with interest thereon. We do not find any substance in the said submission because, not only from the order passed by the learned Single Judge, but also from the case record we find that ample opportunities were given to the appellant – petitioner to repay the amount borrowed along with interest thereon so as to see that the proceedings under Section 29 of the Act are not initiated and the properties belonged to the appellant – petitioner are not disposed of by holding an auction. The auction had been held in a proper manner by inviting applications from the public at large by giving a proper advertisement. The grievance ventilated by the appellant – petitioner does not appear to be just and proper because he did not pay even a small amount of Rs.25,000/- in response to notice dated 14.2.2002 issued by the respondent – creditor. If, in fact, the property was of much higher value than the value at which it had been disposed of in the auction, the appellant – petitioner would have definitely taken steps to see that the property was sold at a higher price than the one which fetched in the auction. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of M/s.Swastic Automobiles v. Bihar State Financial Corporation[1], Gajraj Jain v. State of Bihar[2] and S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. V. State of Bihar[3] in support of his contention that the auction of the property was unsustainable because the property in question was sold for a much lesser price than the valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar. In our opinion, the said judgments would not render any help to the appellant who was duly informed about the value at which the property was likely to be sold under letter dated 14.2.2002. In spite of the said fact, the appellant did not take steps to see that the property is sold at a higher price. The appellant could have also invited persons who could have offered higher amount for the property in question at the time when the auction was held. The learned Single Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the value at which the property was sold was just and proper. Though the learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon a valuation certificate issued by Sub- Registrar, which denotes that the property was much more valuable than the price at which it was sold, but keeping in view the fact that the rice mill which was being run on the land in question and the machinery with which the rice mill was operating had been closed down for several years, the value of the machinery must have been declined substantially and as nobody had come forward to purchase the land at a higher value, we believe that the actual price at which the land was sold must be the real prevailing market value of the property. 7. Looking to the above stated facts, in our opinion, there is no substance in the appeal and, therefore, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ June 12, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {TRT} [1] AIR 1989 SC 1551 [2] (2004) 7 SCC 151 [3] (2004) 7 SCC 166