HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.13460 of 2003 Dated: 31-03-2011 Between: M/s. Starlite Spintech Limited (A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) Corporate Office at 302, Diamond House, 6-3-663/E, Panjagutta, Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Director …Petitioner AND Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Manal, Hyderabad District And others Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.13460 of 2003 ORDER: Petitioner, which claims to be the owner of Maruti Alto car bearing registration No.AP 09AM 2749, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India questioning the attachment of the car for the dues due to the third respondent by the fourth respondent pursuant to the proceedings No.B1/6391/99, dated 18.12.1999 of the second respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice. It is admitted that the fourth respondent, which is the sister concern of the petitioner firm is said to have been due about Rs.4.00 lakhs to the third respondent. Claiming that the fourth respondent is a defaulter, the third respondent addressed a letter to the second respondent to recover the alleged dues of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the fourth respondent-company and in turn, the second respondent directed the first respondent to recover the same from the fourth respondent- company under the provisions of A.P. Revenue Recovery Act. In pursuance of the letters exchanged between the respondents 3 & 2 and 2 & 1, first respondent caused a notice on 21.10.2002 to the Managing Director of fourth respondent-Company to pay an amount of Rs.4,40,000/- i.e. Rs.4.00 lakh towards principal and Rs.40,000/- towards 10% collection charges, in favour of third respondent by obtaining a demand draft. Later the first respondent issued destraint order dated 17.2.2003 treating the Managing Director of fourth respondent as defaulter and destrained his house bearing plot No.14, Road No.2, situated at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. While so, on 28.5.2003 the first respondent attached the Maruti Car that belonged to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition. The Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad District, first respondent herein filed a counter affidavit stating that the Director General, Foreign Trade, New Delhi vide letter No.20/2/93- 96HW/ECA/111/1044, dated 11.8.1995 under intimation to the District Collector stated that an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs as fiscal penalty is recoverable from fourth respondent-Company under the provisions of Imports and Exports Act, 1947. That apart, the Collector, Delhi vide his letter No.75/ETC/NRC/95-96/377, dated 29.9.1995 informed the Collector, Hyderabad to recover an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the fourth respondent. In turn, the Collector, vide his letter, dated 29.10.1995 directed the Mandal Revenue Officer of erstwhile Golconda Mandal to initiate recovery proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act. Pursuant to the same, the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act have been invoked by issuing demand notice and destraint order has been served on the fourth respondent. R.G.Patwari, the Managing Director of fourth respondent-Company was not available at the time of serving the notice, dated 28.5.2003. Mrs. R.G. Patwari received the notice on behalf of the fourth respondent and consented to the effect that the attached moveable property be kept under her custody. The Managing Director of the petitioner-company is the son of defaulter i.e. R.G. Patwari and they were living together at the time of attachment of moveable property i.e. Maruti Alto Car. It is alleged that when the car was attached, Mrs. R.G. Patwari has not informed that the said car belonged to the petitioner- company, but she informed that it belongs to their family. The vehicle was seized by the Deputy Tahsildar, who was authorized to attach the property. Further Mrs.R.G.Patwari consented to keep the vehicle in her custody and she signed on the attachment notice, dated 28.5.2003 to the said effect. Pending the writ petition, as per the interim stay granted by this Court, dated 9.7.2003 no further action has been taken. Only on filing the writ petition, it came to their notice that the vehicle belongs to the petitioner-Company. The vehicle was being used by the Managing Director of the petitioner without obtaining any release order from this respondent as the vehicle was kept under the custody of mother of Managing Director of petitioner-company. During the pendency of the writ petition, fourth respondent represented by the father of the Managing Director of writ petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner of Appeals under Section 57-A of Revenue Recovery Act challenging the proceedings of the first respondent initiated under the said Act and he also filed a writ petition being W.P.No.16912 of 2003 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the Commissioner of Appeals to dispose of the appeal filed by the fourth respondent. The Commissioner of Appeals dismissed the revision on 26.10.2004. On dismissal of the revision, fresh notices were issued to the fourth respondent for payment of due amount and the father of the petitioner who is the Managing Director of fourth respondent-company paid Rs.4.00 lakhs on 29.3.2010 by way of demand draft. It is stated that so far, no coercive steps have been taken. It is specifically admitted in the counter filed by the first respondent that only after attaching the vehicle, it came to the notice of the first respondent that it belongs to the writ petitioner. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the father of the petitioner i.e. the Managing Director of fourth respondent paid the amounts due to the first respondent on 29.3.2010, the attachment order dated 28.5.2003 passed by the first respondent is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 31, 2011 Tsr.