IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24127 of 2000 Between: M.Rajendra Prasad S/o.M.Chandrasekhar Naidu R/o. Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND Special Deputy Tahsildar, A.P.State Financial Corporation, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENT 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 a Writ more in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondent from proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of A.P. Revenue Recovery Act 1864 by holding the destraint order dated 21.11.2000 and consequential notice AFC/ATP/SDT/2000-2001/2221 dated 22.11.2000 as illegal and without authority and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent: MR.Y.V.RAVI PRASAD The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION No.24127 of 2000 O R D E R This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent from proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short ‘the Act’) by holding the destraint order dated 21.11.2000 and consequential notice dated 22.11.2000, as illegal and without authority. The Special Deputy Tahsildar on behalf of A.P. State Financial Corporation, Anantapur Branch, issued a notice under Section-8 of the Act for realization of the amount due to the Corporation. The petitioner challenged the said notice by contending that the properties have not been shown in the destraint notice and that the Deputy Tahsildar is not competent to issue such notice and that by virtue of the Company proceedings the industry was wound up, and therefore, the notice issued by the Deputy Tahsildar is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. The distraint notice is in respect of attachment of movable properties, and so, it is not possible to list out the properties available in the house unless an inventory is made at the time of search and the seizure of the properties. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner that the list of properties was not mentioned in the notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Deputy Tahsildar is not competent to issue the distraint warrant. But the counsel for respondent produced gazette notification dated 7th July, 1988, wherein the Collector, Ananthapur District, has empowered the Special Deputy Tahsildar of Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation attached to Anantapur Branch of Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation to destrain the movable and immovable properties of the defaulters for recovery of the arrears due to the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Ananthapur, in the manner as laid down under the provisions of the Act. In view of the Gazette notification, it cannot be said that the Special Deputy Tahsildar is not competent to issue the destraint warrang, and therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect. So far as Company proceedings to show that the industry was in the winding up process, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after obtaining permission from the Company Law Courts, the proceedings have been initiated. Therefore, the question of non-maintainability of the notice does not arise. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent, I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner, and hence, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------------------- DR. JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU 10th APRIL, 2008 PGS THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU W.P.NO.24127 OF 2000 10th APRIL, 2008