THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.9261 of 2011 ORDER (Per GM,J): This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the impugned notice dated 28-09-2010 in R.P.No.67 of 2002 in O.A.No.633 of 2002, issued by the 3rd respondent-Recovery Officer, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 68-B of the second schedule of Income Tax Act (for brevity ‘the Act) and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. The respondents-bank filed O.A.No.633 of 1997 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) for recovery of an amount of Rs.81,93,032/-, payable by the petitioner. The said O.A. was allowed and that the Tribunal issued recovery certificate on 22-03-2002 in favour of the respondents bank. Even after issuing such orders, since the petitioner failed to repay the due amount, the respondent-bank initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner in R.P.No.67 of 2002 in O.A.No.633 of 1997. Then, the 3rd respondent issued the present impugned notice demanding to repay the amount due, otherwise, the bank would initiate proceedings under Sections 25 to 29 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition contending that as per Rule 68-B of the Act, any debt amount shall be recovered by the respondent-bank within a prescribed period of three years from the date of loan amount granted. Therefore, the impugned notice issued after a long gap of 9 ½ years from the date of the order of the Tribunal, is not sustainable under the Law and the same may be declared as void. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent-bank and perused the record. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be noticed that the respondent-bank, after long lapse of 9 ½ years from the date of order of the Tribunal, came forward with the present impugned legal notice demanding to repay the amount due, but, however, the said notice was issued after the prescribed period of time is over as per Sections 25 to 29 of the Act. Hence, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to raise an objection before the 3rd respondent- Recovery Officer with regard to the limitation of period in issuing impugned notice, and on such objection, the 3rd respondent-Recovery Officer is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated: 07-04-2011 ________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR kvr