IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE HON’BLE SRI ANIL R.DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.374 of 2003 Between: Beeravolu Nirmala. … Appellant. And: The Collector & District Magistrate, Warangal District at Subedari, Hanamkonda Town, Warangal District. and five others. … Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Govinda Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Revenue for R.1, 2 and 6. None for R.3 to R.5. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI ANIL R.DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.374 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (per C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.,) The Writ Petitioner, who felt aggrieved by order, dated 27-1-2003, in Writ Petition No.1903 of 2001, filed this Writ Appeal assailing the said order of the learned single Judge. The appellant is a partner of the Firm-M/s. Uma Financiers (for short “the Firm”). Respondent No.4 filed a complaint before the District Collector-respondent No.1 under Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short “the Act”), wherein it was stated that certain deposits were made by respondents 3 to 5 with the Firm, which promised to repay the said deposits along with interest; and that no part of the said deposits was repaid to them. On receipt of the complaint, respondent No.1 issued memo, dated 19-6-2000, to the appellant, calling for her explanation on the abovementioned complaint. After considering the explanation submitted by the appellant, respondent No.1 issued proceedings, dated 17-1-2001, whereby he directed the Mandal Revenue Officers of Hanamkonda and Chityal to seize the agricultural lands, the extents of which are referred to in para 9 of the said order. This order was questioned by the appellant in the Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. At the hearing, Sri M.Govinda Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that respondent No.1 has wrongly exercised the power vested in him under Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Rules, 1999 (for short “the Rules”). According to the learned counsel, the power under the said Rule is not available to be exercised by the competent authority until the State Government passes an order of attachment under Section 3 of the Act. We have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel and we are unable to agree with the same. A reading of Section 3 and Rule 6 would go to show that the power of attachment vested in the Government and the power to freeze or seize the property by the competent authority are concurrent powers conferred on these two authorities, which can be exercised independent of each other. All that the competent authority is required to be satisfied before exercising the power under Rule 6 is that he has reason to believe that any property, which is liable to be attached under the Act, is likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner, which will result in defeating the purpose of the Act. Therefore, passing order of attachment by the Government is not a sine qua non for exercising of power by the competent authority under Rule 6. In the order passed by respondent No.1, he has considered the explanations submitted by the appellant and other partners and arrived at the satisfaction that the property was likely to be transferred in order to defeat the claims of the depositors. Therefore, in our considered view, the order of respondent No.1 does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of the same. The learned single Judge has, therefore, rightly dismissed the Writ Petition with an observation that if the appellant feels aggrieved by the continuous seizing of the property, she can approach the competent authority for passing appropriate orders. In our view, the order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any error for being interfered in this appeal. The Writ Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ., C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt.21-10-2009 MNR