IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WP.No. 3 6 8 8 of 2002 Between: M. Jagadish ..... Petitioner V/s. The Deputy Registrar, Recovery Officer Lead Bank, SBH Zonal Office Kachiguda, Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G.V. SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy The Court made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WP.No. 3 6 8 8 OF 2002 O R D E R : Distraint order dated 20-2-2002 of the first respondent is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner availed financial assistance as loan under the Prime Minister’s Rozgar Yojana Scheme for a sum of Rs.94,999-00 on 11-12-1997. The loan amount was required to be repaid in fifty monthly instalments @ Rs.1900/-. The petitioner claims that he availed loan to run a xerox centre and paid the instalment promptly for a period of two years. But he could not adhere to repayment schedule, as he suffered loss in the said business. The second respondent, therefore, caused distraint order to be issued on 27-2-2002 for recovery of the balance amount. 3. During the hearing of this writ petition on the previous occasion on 19-3-2010 the petitioner undertook to discharge the entire liability within one week time and this court recorded the said undertaking and granted three weeks time. On 09-4-2010 it was represented that as per the said direction, banker’s cheques were obtained for a total of Rs.95,000/- and presented before the second respondent-bank, which the bank refused to receive. The cheques, therefore, were sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. Eventually the bank received the cheques. As per the distraint order, an amount of Rs.95,000/- was shown to be the arrears, which the petitioner has cleared and the same satisfies the liability as indicated in the impugned distraint order. However, the Bank appears to have addressed a letter No.F.ADV/590, dated 06-5-2010 to the petitioner in which it has been indicated that an amount of Rs.1,63,252-00 is still outstanding and payable by the petitioner. The petitioner, however, disputes that the outstanding amount as indicated by the second respondent is not due and payable. It may be noted that inasmuch as the petitioner has cleared the liability as per the distraint order, the respondents cannot proceed against the petitioner for the recovery of the outstanding amount, which has become due after subsequent to the Distraint Order. 4. However, it is appropriate that the petitioner be directed to make a representation to the second respondent with reference to the letter No.F.ADV/590, dated 06-4-2010 and the second respondent is directed to consider the same. Until the liability pursuant to the letter No.F.ADV/590, dated 06-5-2010 is finally decided, no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the alleged outstanding amount of Rs.1,63,252/- 5. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ Justice Noushad Ali. 31-05-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 3 6 8 8 OF 2002 Circulation Entry No. 3 5 Date: 31-05-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L