AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Sesha Sai, J
Heard Sri Neha Panday, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Subash, learned Government Pleader for the respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record.
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
"To issue writ, an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus. A. Declaring Respondents to immediately restore the distrained property to the petitioner. B. Declaring the action of Respondent No.2 and 4 in issuing Notice bearing Rc.No.141/2021/A dated June 11-2021 along with From No.1 (Distrain Order) under Section 8 of the Revenue Act to Respondent No.5 but wrongfully attaching the Property of Petitioner who is not a defaulter is ultra vires, illegal and arbitrary.
C. Declaring the inaction of Respondent No.2 in not replying/not taking any action against the Letter dated June 11-2021 after being clearly informed that the Property has been wrongfully attached, as being illegal, arbitrary and malafide.
D. An order, direction or writ may kindly be issued quashing the Notice bearing Rc.No.141/2021/A dated June 11-2021 along with From No.1 (Distrain Order) under Section 8 of the Revenue Act.
E. Pass such further order or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
According to the petitioner, it is a company and is a premier trading and distribution organization with a network of offices and subsidiaries spanning more than 29 countries in Africa, Europe, Middle East, Latin America and Asia and the petitioner is a member of the reputed business conglomerate the 'Tata Group' and trades in various minerals, metals, agricultural products in India and across the globe.
Obviously, the impugned action has been initiated in view of the default committed by respondent No.5 in paying the amount due to the farmers who supplied sugarcane to respondent No.5. The case of the petitioner, as advocated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner herein purchased the sugar from respondent No.5 during the period December, 2020 to February, 2021 and the said sugar is lying in the premises of respondent No.5 and the petitioner alone is the owner of the said sugar and neither the official respondents nor respondent No.5 have any right over the said sugar. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner herein approached the District Collector by way of representation dated 11.06.2021, claiming the sugar covered by the distraint order.
On the contrary, strongly resisting the Writ Petition, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable and the only alternative remedy left to the petitioner is to invoke Section 17 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, by instituting Civil Suit. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader during the course of arguments that on the representation dated 11.06.2021 filed by the petitioner herein, the District Collector, Vizianagaram, vide proceedings Rc.No.985/202/D3 dated 18.11.2021, passed an order turning down the request of the petitioner herein. A copy of the said order is placed on record by the learned Government Pleader and a copy of the said order is also given to the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader that the auction is scheduled to be held on 23.11.2021.
On seeing the above said proceedings dated 18.11.2021, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without considering the points raised in the representation dated 11.06.2021 and without considering the material available on record, the District Collector, turned down the request of the petitioner herein. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that along with the present Writ Petition, a number of documents such as invoices and unregistered agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.5 are filed, which clearly indicate that the petitioner herein is the owner of the property. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without holding enquiry, the District Collector passed the said order. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the composite High Court in Taherunnisa Begum Vs. District Collector, Cuddapah District and another1.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to have a quietus for the issue and on perusal of the order of the District Collector, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, leaving it open for the petitioner herein to submit a detailed explanation by 22.11.2021, enclosing all the relevant documents in support of its claim for consideration of the same by the District Collector and for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also made clear that the proposed auction may go on, but the same shall be deferred till an order is passed by the District Collector on the explanation to be offered by the petitioner. In the event of failure on the part of the petitioner in submitting such an explanation, as indicated above, this order will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner herein.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.
AIR 2008 AP 11 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.