IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32472 of 1997 Between: M/s. International Constructioin Company rep. by its Managing Partner, Anne Aruna Prasad. Regd. Office at China Ogirala, Cental Office at Museum Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India rep. by its Secretary Law Department, Parliament Housse, New Delhi. 2 Bank of Baroda Rep. by its Branch Manager. Museum Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada, 3 The Chariman Bedt Recovery Tribunal. Krishi Bhavan, Nraptunga Road, Bangalore. .....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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ of Mandamus declaring the original proceedings bearing O.A.No. 904/97 on the file of the 3rd Respondent/Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore against the petitioner as being invalid, after declaring the provisions of Act 51 of 1993 as being illegal, violative to the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional as being violative of Art.14, 19, 21, 246(3) and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.KONDALA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32472 of 1997 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) This writ petition is filed questioning the provisions of Debt Recovery Act No.51 of 1993. It is not in dispute that the constitutional validity of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, was upheld by the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS[1]. The subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the said decision. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order granted on 08-12-1997 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 27-01-2009 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{PRASAD} [1] (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 275