IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12361 of 2009 Between: 1 Somagani Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Pitchaiah, R/o. H.No.3-5-131, Jammigadda Locality Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 2 Somagani Laxmaiah, S/o. Pitchaiah, R/o. H.No.3-5-131/A, Jammigadda Locality Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 3 Daka Srinivas Naidu, S/o. Narayana, R/o.H.No.3-5-131/a/I Jammigadda Locality, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 9(1), Hyderabad. 3 M/s Peeshonu Marketing Private Limited, Vijaya Colony, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Rep. by its Chief Manager Director Theppali Saidulu, S/o. Bixam. 4 The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Suryapet Branch, Suryapet, Naglonda, Rep. by its Manager. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in he nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in returning the cheques issued by the 3rd respondent herein to the petitioners herein under the pretext of freezing of the accounts pertaining to the 3rd respondent basing on the orders of the 2nd respondent 6-3-2009 in F.No.28IB/DCIT/2008-09, as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent No.4 herein to honour the cheques presented by the petitioners, and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. PRABHAKAR BOMMAGANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR. S.R. ASHOK, (STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT) Counsel for Respondent No.3: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.4: None appeared The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) The petitioners have been aggrieved by an order dt.6.3.2009 passed by respondent No.2 whereby the bank accounts of respondent No.3 have been attached. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No.3 had given certain cheques in favour of the petitioners and because of the attachment of the bank accounts of respondent No.3, the petitioners are unable to get the cheques encashed. Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, has submitted that the bank accounts of respondent No.3 have been attached under the provisions of Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, as respondent No.3 has not paid its dues to the respondent income tax authorities. In our opinion, the present petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order dt.6.3.2009, which is virtually against respondent No.3. It would be open to the petitioners to recover the amount due from respondent No.3 in accordance with law by any other mode available to them. We do not find any illegality committed by respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order dt.6.3.2009 is concerned. Needless to say that we have not decided the validity of the impugned order so far as respondent No.3 is concerned. The petition is, therefore, rejected with no order as to costs. _______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 29-07-2009 bnr