THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.A.NO.630 of 2010 & W.P.NO.10221 of 2010 15-09-2010 BETWEEN; Yerraboina Jhansi wife of Y.Jayaramulu ...Appellant vs. The Inspector of Police, ACB, Karimnagar Range and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.A.NO.630 of 2010 and W.P.No.10221 of 2010. ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The synoptic submission of the respective parties is that th W.P.10221 of 2010 could itself be disposed of by us as the writ appeal i directed against the order dated 19-07-2010 in WPMP No.13131 of 201 in WP No.10221 of 2010, declining to grant interim relief. In view of th conjoint submissions, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and i disposed of. The writ petition is against the action of the 1st respondent in issuin proceeding dated 02-03-2010 directing the 2nd respondent-Sub Registra Gangadar Mandal, Karimnagar District not to entertain any transactions o registrations pertaining to the specified properties. On 02-03-2010 th Inspector of Police, ACB, Karimnagar Range addressed the Distric Collector stating that the writ petitioner’s husband one Yerroboin Jayaramulu was accused in a case pertaining to possession of asset disproportionate to his known source of income being a public servant an a prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Ac 1988 was being pursued; certain properties held in the name of the wife o the accused-the writ petitioner are believed by the Inspector of Police ACB to have been acquired by the accused-public servant from out of hi corrupt conduct as such public servant and therefore the District Collecto Karimngar may direct the 2nd respondent-registering authorit not to entertain any transactions or registrations pertaining to th enumerated properties, by noting the same in the prohibitory order register. It would appear that the ACB authorities were disinclined to exercis the statutory powers available namely attachment of the properties o persons accused under the PC Act, in view of a memo dated 15-10-200 issued by the State Government whereby the Government ordered that th attachment of the property shall be resorted to after obtaining the detaile final report. While it is not clear by what authority the State Governmen had eclipsed the statutorily consecrated discretion of the investigatin agencies and whether by an executive fiat the statutorily conferred power could be eclipsed, the fact of the matter is that the ACB persuaded itself t inaction in view of the orders of the Government in Memo dated 15-10 2008. Instead, creatively but without any authority in law, the Inspector o Police addressed the Collector to address the Registering authority not t register any transactions pertaining to the property by including these in prohibitory order register. It is fairly conceded by Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, the learned Standin Counsel for ACB that there was no provision in any law including th Registration Act,1908 which authorises the Collector to issue an directions to another statutory authority, the registering officer not t register any transactions which the said authority is bound to consider fo registration in exercise of his statutory obligations under the provisions o the Registration Act,1908; nor is there any legislative authority for directin inclusion of any properties in the prohibitory order register on the mer premise that such property may have been acquired from out of th proceeds of any offence committed b some other person under th provisions of the P.C.Act. It would appear that pursuant to the letter of the Inspector of Police ACB dated 02-03-2010, the District Collector, Karimnagar addressed th 2nd respondent-registering authority not to register or transfer th properties. Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao finding no justification for the lette addressed by the Inspector of Police, ACB to the District Collector and th consequent letter addressed by the District Collector to the registerin authority, has persuaded these officers to see reason and recant from th earlier illegal executive conduct. Accordingly, the Inspector of Police, AC addressed a letter dated 07-09-2010 to the District Collector, Karimnaga withdrawing his earlier request contained in his letter dated 02-03 2010 and the District Collector addressed the 2nd respondent-registerin authority by his letter dated 09-09-2010 recalling his earlier letter directin not to register the properties of the writ petitioner. In view of the abov subsequent developments, the substantive grievance in the writ petitio does not subsist and there is no clog, if ever there was one on the power o the 2nd respondent-registering authority to consider any document presented by the petitioner for registration of any transactions pertaining t her properties and to take appropriate action, within his jurisdiction unde the appropriate law for the time being in force. On the analyses above, the writ appeal as well as the writ petitio have become infructuous and are accordingly dismissed as infructuous No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ___________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010. TSNR