THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.17273 of 2002 ORDER: M/s. Rama Organics Private Limited borrowed certain amount from the respondent-corporation. The husband of the petitioner, by name Seshagiri Rao, was one of the guarantors for repayment of the amount. Proceedings were initiated against M/s. Rama Organics Private Limited as well as Seshagiri Rao, by the respondent as well as A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (A.P.I.I.C), for recovery of the amount due. The petitioner states that when the A.P.I.I.C. sought to proceed against her property, she approached this Court by filing a writ petition and on the basis of the orders passed therein and the subsequent correspondence, they were restrained from proceeding against her. The grievance of the petitioner is that the officials of the respondent are harassing her by frequently visiting the house and trying to proceed against the property. She got issued a notice on 17.01.2002 through Advocate and in the reply, dated 28.08.2002, the respondent reiterated its right to proceed against the properties of Seshagiri Rao. It was mentioned that since the petitioner is living with the Seshagiri Rao, she is obstructing the proceedings and it has every right to proceed against the properties of Seshagiri Rao. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the respondent is not entitled to proceed against the property. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner does not challenge any specific proceedings as such. She feels aggrieved by the stand taken by the respondent in the reply, dated 28.08.2002, wherein the respondent did not make any claim vis-à-vis the property held by the petitioner. It has only reiterated its right to proceed against Seshagiri Rao and his immovable or movable properties. The petitioner did not cite any instance of the respondent attaching or otherwise proceeding against her individual properties. When the respondent categorically pleaded that its claim is only against the husband of the petitioner, the apprehension expressed in this writ petition is in a way without basis. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, making clear that the respondent shall not proceed against any property held by the petitioner and at the same time, its right to proceed against the husband of the petitioner for recovery amount due, shall be unbridled. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 20.11.2008 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.17273 of 2002 Date: 20.11.2008 JSU