IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 1395 of 2007 Between: M/s. Raghu Industries, repby its Proprietor, J.Koteswara Rao S/oAppa Rao R/o 5-4-258/1, bapujingar, Lawsons Bay Colony Visakhapatnam-17 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation rep byits Managing Director, Chirag AliLane Hyderabad 2 The Branch Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Fincnce Corportion 52-14-77/1, Near LB College, Rasapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Letter Ref: AFC/VSP/KCR/2006-207/ 4594 dated 14-11-2006 seizing the petitioner unit under Section 29 of State Financial Corporations, Act, 1951 as also notice inviting sealed tenders cum bid for the sale of assets belonging to petitioner dated 19-01- 2007, which was published in Telugu Daily Eenadu in its Edition dated 20-01-2007 as illegal and arbitrary and set a side the same and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents to restore the Unit to the petitioner and pass such other or further order or orders as are deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. K.SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : MR.SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.1395 OF 2007 ORDER : The petitioner herein is a small scale unit which availed term loan from the 2nd respondent Corporation. On the ground that the petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the 2nd respondent seized the petitioner unit and thereafter having invoked Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short, ‘the Act’) proposed to sell the assets of the petitioner unit as well as collateral securities by way of auction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled this writ petition. This Court while directing Rule Nisi, by order dated 25.01.2007 granted interim stay of proposed sale subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits certain amounts. The said order dated 25.1.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.1778 of 2007 may be extracted hereunder : “Interim stay as prayed for subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) within four weeks from today and another sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand only) within two weeks thereafter. On deposit of a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Ninety thousand only), the seizure of the unit, already made, shall be lifted permitting the petitioner to carry on the business.” In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the 2nd respondent Corporation, it is stated that in compliance with the above order the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore the seizure was lifted. However, subsequently, the petitioner requested the Corporation to permit the petitioner to shift the machinery of its unit from original place to Plot No.74 of Endada Village, Chinnagadhili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The permission was granted and accordingly the petitioner shifted the machinery to the new place. Thereafter, on 29.6.2007 when the Recovery Oﬃcer of the respondent Corporation visited the new premises it was noticed that the petitioner unit was not in working condition since the power supply was disconnected. By that time, the petitioner was also in arrears of Rs.1,50,000/- towards principal, Rs.1,26,412/- towards interest and Rs.10,330/- towards other expenses as on 31.08.2007. In the circumstances, the respondent Corporation issued a Recall-cum-Sale Notice, dated 5.7.2007. Since there was no response from the petitioner, primary assets of the petitioner were again seized on 14.8.2007. Having regard to the subsequent events, particularly the seizure eﬀected on 14.8.2007 during the pendency of this writ petition, the cause in the writ petition does not survive and if aggrieved it is for the petitioner to challenge the same by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 14.10.2008 gbs