THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22071 of 2005 Date: 07.03.2008 Between: B.Elizebeth Rani … Petitioner AND The A.P.State Financial Corporation, Khammam Branch. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.Prasad, for Sri Raja Malla Reddy Counsel for respondent :Sri M.Vidyasagar, Standing Counsel Ftu 0 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22071 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside attachment notice dated 16.9.2005 issued by the respondent as being contrary to the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Heard Sri S.Prasad for Sri Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent. The petitioner’s husband availed a term loan of Rs.2,46,000/-. The parties are at issue regarding the quantum of loan amount and it is not necessary for this Court to give any finding thereon for the present purpose. Suffice it to note that as there are outstanding dues payable by the husband of the petitioner, the respondent issued the impugned proceedings by which M/s.Daniel Enterprises is called upon to pay the balance loan amount before 30.9.2005 failing which household articles of the husband of the petitioner will be auctioned. It is also stated in the impugned notice that if the parties arrive at onetime settlement by paying 15% of the money on or before 30.9.2005, the recovery proceedings will be stayed temporarily. In the counter affidavit it is mentioned that in order to recover the outstanding loan amount payable by the petitioner’s husband, notice was issued and that the petitioner in collusion with her husband promoted M/s.Daneil Enterprises with a mala fide intention to cheat the bankers and financial institutions. It is further stated that the petitioner may have obtained loan from the bank for other purposes and not for purchasing the moveables. A perusal of the impugned notice shows that the husband of the petitioner who is the promoter of M/s.Daniel Enterprises has failed to clear the outstanding loan amount despite issuance of several notices under Section 52-A of the A.P.Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and that if the amounts are not paid on or before 30.9.2005, the household Articles will be auctioned. In the affidavit, the petitioner mentioned that the household articles in respect of which the impugned notice is given, do not belong to the petitioner’s husband. At the hearing, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present writ petition since what was issued was only a notice and that the respondents will not resort to either attachment or sale of the household articles without giving the petitioner and her husband a reasonable opportunity of making a representation. In the impugn ed notice, the respondent has proposed to attach the household articles. Sub-clauses (a) to (p) of proviso to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 enumerates the articles which cannot be attached and sold. The respondent has not indicated in the impugned notice which are the household articles that were proposed to be sold. Further in the light of the stand of the petitioner that those articles do not belong to the loanee namely Sri K.Daniel, the respondents cannot seek to sell those articles without first deciding whether they belong to the loanee or the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. The respondent is however, given an opportunity to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and her husband and pass appropriate orders after hearing them before seeking to initiate proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 07.03.2008 mdaa