THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.726 of 2002 ORDER: The 4th respondent obtained loan from the BHEL Branch of A.P.State Financial Corporation, 2nd respondent herein, for the purpose of establishing an industry. The petitioner and some others stood as guarantors for repayment of the loan. Since the 4th respondent committed default, the 2nd respondent recalled the loan on 14.11.1988. Thereafter, the plant and machinery were seized and were sold in favour of the 5th respondent in the year 1995. It appears that the liability of the 4th respondent towards the 2nd respondent was not cleared in its entirety. Therefore, on instructions issued by the 2nd respondent, the Revenue Recovery Inspector, 3rd respondent herein visited the house of the petitioner and insisted that she should clear the balance of the loan. The petitioner contends that she is not served with any proceedings and she was not put on notice either at the time of selling the primary assets or at other stages. She challenges the action of the respondents in visiting her house and insisting on payment of loan. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, a counter affidavit is filed. The relevant facts commencing from the sanction of loan to the 4th respondent, to the initiation of proceedings for recovery of the balance, after sale of the unit, are mentioned. It is stated that the petitioner is also equally liable as a surety, to pay the balance of the loan amount. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent No.5 The petitioner admits that she stood as guarantor in the loan transaction between respondents 2 and 4. The primary assets of the 4th respondent were already sold by the 2nd respondent, by exercising its power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner had asserted in her affidavit that the 3rd respondent and other officials have visited her house on 05.01.2002 and threatened to forcibly evict her from the house. The counter affidavit did not deal with this aspect specifically. Further, nowhere in the counter affidavit, it is stated that any proceedings are initiated against the petitioner either under Section 31 of the Act or Section 52-A of the Revenue Recovery Act. It is only by issuing the notices under the relevant provisions of law, that the 2nd respondent or any authority on its behalf, can proceed against the petitioner. As and when proceedings are initiated, the affected parties would be entitled to raise objections, that are available to them in law. There is no question of respondents 2 and 3 visiting the house of the petitioner, without instituting any proceedings or issuing notices. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that respondents 2 and 3 shall not proceed against the petitioner, except by issuing necessary notices contemplated under the relevant provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 26.11.2008 JSU THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.726 of 2002 Date: 26.11.2008 JSU