IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4491 of 2009 Between: A. Sree Ramachandra Murthy ..... Petitioner AND The Manager (HR) South Zone, G.M.O. South Zone, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Thallamuttu Natarajan Building, IV Floor No.1 Ghandi Irwin Road, P.O.Box.No.3045, Egmore, Chennai-8 & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri L.J. Veera Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4491 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in attaching the petitioner’s salary to the extent of Rs.10,000/- in compliance with the orders passed in E.P.Nos.156 and 157 of 2004 on the file of respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the provisions of Section 60(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) and submitted that even after an order of attachment was passed by respondent No.3, respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot continue to withhold the salary of the petitioner in pursuance of such order beyond the period stipulated in the said provision. In my considered opinion, the question as to whether the provisions of CPC apply to the proceedings before respondent No.3 and if so, whether the order of attachment said to have been passed by respondent No.3, in pursuance of which the petitioner’s salary is being withheld by respondent Nos.1 and 2, are required to be adjudicated by respondent No.3. The petitioner has not questioned the order of attachment passed by respondent No.3 in this writ petition. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate on the validity or otherwise of the attachment order passed by respondent No.3 and being enforced by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No.3 for raising the attachment. The petitioner is permitted to raise all legally permissible grounds before respondent No.3 for raising attachment. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.5905 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.03.2009 ES