IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1544 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/11/2008 in WP NO : 18953 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: U.M.S.Ballenna, S/o. late Veeranna, D.NO.18/469, Near Quibula Quarters, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool district. 2 The Tahasildar, Yemmiganuer Mandal, Kurnool district. 3 The Circle Inspector, Yemmiganur Police Station, Yemmiganur Police Station, Yemmiganuer, Kurnool district. 4 SRI, U.Narayana, S/o. U.Papi Reddy, N.Kairavadi Village, Yemmiganuer, Kurnool district. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.B.VIJAYA BHASKER Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1544 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 13.11.2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition W.P.No.18953 of 2008, wherein a declaration was sought that the action of the first respondent therein in issuing warrant of arrest, dated 22.08.2008, against the writ petitioner, in Form No.11, under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Appellant is writ petitioner and respondents are respondents in the said writ petition. 4. Brief facts of the case, necessary for disposal of the present Writ Appeal, are as under: Appellant, admittedly, is owner of lorry bearing Registration No.AP.Q.8127, which was involved in an accident, killing three persons and injuring some; that, in this regard, claim petitions have been filed before the Tribunal; that the fourth respondent herein is also one among the claimants; that M.V.O.P.No.148 of 1991, filed by the fourth respondent herein, was allowed by the Tribunal, awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, together with interest at 12% per annum; that, for recovery of said amount, the fourth respondent has filed E.P.No.8 of 1994, which was dismissed; that the said order had been questioned by him before this Court in a Civil Revision Petition, which was also dismissed, granting liberty to him to file fresh execution petition after taking a certificate for the said amount and move the Collector for recovery of the said amount under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act; that, accordingly, he obtained a certificate under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the first respondent- District Collector caused an enquiry and directed the second respondent-Tahsildar to recover a sum of Rs.6,03,979/- from the appellant, by attaching his properties; that the said amount appears to have been towards the entire claim made by the claimants in other M.V. O.Ps; that, thereafter, it appears, the second respondent-Tahsildar had conducted an enquiry and reported that the appellant had no means, despite which, another notice was issued by the District Collector on 02.04.2002. 5. It is also not in dispute that, earlier, the fourth respondent has filed a writ petition W.P.No.3277 of 1999, which was disposed of, by order, dated 18.04.2007, and, in pursuance of the directions therein, the first respondent- District Collector, having considered the representation of the fourth respondent, issued distraint order, dated 28.05.2007, under Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act; that the appellant has submitted an explanation to the said order, and again, on 08.08.2007, the Tahsildar has submitted a report to the District Collector that the appellant had no means to pay, despite which, notice of arrest, dated 29.05.2008, was issued and the same was questioned in a writ petition W.P.No.12191 of 2008, which was dismissed with a direction to the appellant to offer his explanation to the said notice, dated 29.05.2008; that, subsequently, warrant of arrest, dated 22.08.2008, was issued against the appellant and that challenging the same, the appellant has filed another writ petition W.P.No.18953 of 2008, which was also dismissed. Hence, the present Writ Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the District Collector has to conduct an enquiry before ordering arrest of a person, under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, and, in support of his contention, he relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in B.RAMESH SHETTY VS. A.P.S.F.C.[1]. 7. The said decision was to the effect that before ordering arrest of a person, for failure to pay the dues, recoverable under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, the District Collector has to conduct an enquiry and ascertain whether the person was willfully avoiding, despite possessing sufficient means. 8. Learned single Judge, however, had drawn a distinction with the said decision on the ground that the conduct of the appellant would go to show that he was virtually trying to evade the payment of compensation to the claimants, by resorting to litigation in one way or the other, since 1993. This opinion had been formulated by the learned single Judge basing on the observations made by the District Collector in the warrant of arrest, dated 22.08.2008, that the appellant is guilty of fraudulent conduct to evade the payment of compensation 9. The matter arises under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In fact, since 1993, the appellant had been resorting to litigation in one way or the other, only to evade payment of compensation to the claimants. 10. The appellant is owner of said lorry and is also working as a lorry broker. In such circumstances, one cannot believe that the appellant had no means to pay compensation to the families of the claimants. This conduct on the part of the appellant is unholy, inasmuch as, he is resorting to this unethical litigation by suppressing the real facts as regards his financial condition. 11. The learned single Judge had arrived at the conclusion on the basis of observations made by the District Collector in the warrant of arrest. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to disagree with the said observations made by the District Collector, in the warrant of arrest, dated 22.08.2008, that the appellant is guilty of fraudulent conduct to evade the payment and we have every reason to disbelieve the reports submitted by the Tahsildar that the appellant has no means. 12. Therefore, the learned single Judge, in our considered view, had arrived at a right conclusion and dismissed the said writ petition. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 21st November 2008 DR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool district. 2 The Tahasildar, Yemmiganuer Mandal, Kurnool district. 3 The Circle Inspector, Yemmiganur Police Station, Yemmiganur Police Station, Yemmiganuer, Kurnool district. 4 2 CCS to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 5 2CD copies [1] 1997 (2) ALD 326