THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14708 of 2010 Dated 31st August, 2010 Between: Vijjapu Subba Rao. …Petitioner And The State Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for respondent No.4: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside G.O.Ms.No.393, Home (General.B) Department, dated 02.09.2009 to the extent of item No.4 thereof and consequently to direct the respondents to delete the said item from the G.O. I have heard Sri G. Narasimha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner claimed to have purchased an extent of 159.44 sq. yards of land in survey Nos.58/1, 57/2, 54/2, 27/2 and 60/3D situated in plot No.140, Ajithsingh Nagar, Vijayawada city from one Kona Venkata Narayana, S/o late Gopala Swamy under a registered sale deed for a valuable consideration on 28.12.2002. According to the petitioner, the said property was purchased by his vendor from out of his earnings as A.R. Constable and member of Urban District Police Sankshema Sangam in the year 1997. The petitioner’s vendor has established a chit fund company in the name and style of M/s. Sailatha Chit Funds Company in the year 1995 and another agency in the name of Sailatha Builders. The petitioner’s vendor is stated to have died on 10.03.2009. On lodging of several reports by the creditors of the chit fund company, F.I.R.No.212 of 2009 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. on 10.04.2009 against wife, sons, daughter and son-in-law of the deceased Venkata Narayana. Obviously to safeguard the interests of the creditors, respondent No.2 has also issued G.O.Ms.No.393 dated 02.09.2009 under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby several properties were attached under five items. As noted above item No.4 was purchased by the petitioner who claims that he is a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration and that the same should not have been attached under the impugned G.O. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that the competent authority shall apply within fifteen days of attachment for making the ad interim order of attachment absolute to the Special Court constituted under the Act and that as there was delay in making such an application, respondent No.2, who is the competent authority, has filed Crl.M.P.No.370 of 2010 for condonation of delay of 218 days and that the same is pending. She further stated that the petitioner, instead of approaching the Special Court by raising objections for making ad interim attachment absolute, has filed the present writ petition bypassing the said remedy. Under Section 3 of the Act where the Government is satisfied that the financial establishment is not likely to return the deposits in cash or kind after maturity, or in any manner agreed upon, it may by order, to protect the interests of the depositors, pass an ad interim order attaching the money or other property alleged to have been procured either in the name of the financial establishment or in the name of any other person from and out of the deposits collected by the financial establishment or if it transpires that such money or other property is not available for attachment or not sufficient for repayment of the deposits, such other property of the said financial establishment or the promoter, manager or member of the said financial establishment as the Government may think fit and transfer the control over the said money or property to the competent authority. Under Section 4 (3) of the Act, the competent authority shall apply to the Special Court for making the ad interim order of attachment absolute within fifteen days from the date of attachment. Under Section 7 of the Act, the Special Court shall issue notices to all the persons concerned before passing an order on the application filed for making the ad interim order of attachment absolute. Under Section 7 (3) of the Act, any person claiming an interest in the property attached or any portion thereof may notwithstanding that no notice has been served upon him make an objection to the Special Court at any time before an order making the ad interim order of attachment absolute. In my opinion, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of approaching the Special Court by raising all the legally sustainable objections to the attachment of the property in question. The writ petition is, therefore, premature as the competent authority has already approached the Special Court for making the ad interim attachment absolute in an application for condonation of delay. Hence, the petitioner is permitted to make an application as envisaged under Section 7 (3) of the Act without waiting for a notice to be given by the Special Court. If such an application is received by the Special Court, it shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after hearing the competent authority and other parties before it, within a period of three months from the date of filing of the application by the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.18522 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st August, 2010 GHN