IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12856 of 2004 Between: Gautam Vasanth Pradhan, S/o. Vasanth Keshav Pradhan Rep. by Father & GPA Holder, Sri Vasanth Keshav Pradhan, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Retired, R/o.C/45, Dombivil Nagrik CHS, Mahatmaphule Road, Dombvili District (W) Thane-421202 ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, Kendriya Sadan Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. 2 M/s. V.R. Mathur Mass Communication Limited, Reg. Office 3rd floor, Krishna Plaza, Khairathabad, Hyderabad. 3 Vimal Raj Mathur S/o. Dharmaraj Mathur 6-2-966/1 Kharithabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in not taking appropriate steps for recovery of the application amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with accrued interest from the 2nd respondent company and rejecting the representation vide proceedings dt. 18/11/2003 as arbitrary, illegal and set aside the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take appropirate steps to recover the application amount from the 2nd respondent with accrued interest and pay the same to the petitioner herein forthwith. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. KMJD Syama Sundari, Addl. S.C. for C.G. Counsel for respondents 2 and 3: The Court made the following Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent, Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, in not taking appropriate steps for recovery of the application amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the second respondent-company as arbitrary and illegal. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner, who is a holder of general power of attorney of his son, states that his son had applied for 10,000 shares with the second respondent- company and paid Rs.1,00,000/-, but the second respondent-company, having received the said amount, failed to allot shares. It is stated that, in this regard, a complaint was filed to the Secretary, Department of Company Affairs, based on which criminal proceedings were initiated against the second respondent in C.C.No.22 of 1998 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences. It is the case of the petitioner that though the accused in the said criminal case were convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., and directions were also issued to refund the application amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, the second respondent-company failed to refund the same. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of submitting a representation to the first respondent requesting to take appropriate steps in the matter, no action has been taken. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner did not bring to the notice of this court about any provision under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 which empowers the first respondent-Registrar of companies to recover the money from the second respondent and remit the same to the petitioner. If the petitioner is deprived of his money by not allotting shares by the second respondent-company, while it is open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies available under law to recover the money, but in absence of any provision under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, he cannot make any grievance against the first respondent- Registrar of Companies alleging that he has not responded to his representation. In that view of the matter, I do not find any valid ground for issuance of directions as prayed for in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner to avail any other remedy available under law to recover the money in question from the second respondent-company. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. June 1, 2009 MRR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GR}