WRIT PETITION 44296 on 19 July 1990

1. Andhra Pradesh State Financial [Corporation, ][Rep. Chairman, 5-9-194, ][H.o.,]

4.

6. Petition under Section 151 [CPC ][praying ][that in the ][circumstances ][stated]in the affidavit filed in support [of ][the ][petition, ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to]restore Review Petition [in ][W.A.No.1235 ][of ][2018 ][in ][W.P.No.44296 ][of ][2017.]

counset for the Appellant: [Mr. SYED YOUSUF, PARTY ][lN ][PERSON]

Counsel for the Respondent [NOs.1 ][to ][4: ][Ms. ][Y. ][N. ][LOHITA]

Counsel forthe Respondent [NOs.S ][& ][6: ][SRt ][K.V. ][RUSHEEK REDDY]

The Court made the following: [ORDER]

\{)

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYANAND

I.A.(SRI No.84499 OF 2o22INWRIT APPEAL No.1235 OF 2018

ORDER: per the llon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

This interlocutory application has been filed with theprayer for restoration of review petition in W.A.No.1235 of2018 in writ petition No.44296 of 2017. Though Registryhas raised objection about maintainability of suchrestoration petition, we found the party-in-person to be insome distress, and therefore notwithstanding the objectionraised by the Registry, we have heard him at length. Alsoheard Ms. Y.N.Lohita appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4and Mr. K.V.Rusheek Reddy, learned counsel for respondentNos.S and 6.

2- Petitioner is the proprietor of a concern caltedM/s.Mobina lce Makers whose factory was located at protNo.43, Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal in MedakDistrict.

\t

, .. " _":,-*-. .._

l

3. From the materials on record, we find that on19.07.1990 a term loan of Rs.7.49 lakhs was sanctioned tothe said concern by the Andhra pradesh state Financialcorporation (for short, the corporation, hereinafter) forsetting up a unit for manufacture of ice blocks. Theproprietar5r concern availed the loan and set up the icefactory in an area admeasuring goo square yards inAmeenpur village. For availing the said loan, the proprietaryconcern also offered land admeasuring 40oo square yardsadjacent to the ice factory (to be set up) as coilateralsecurity.

4. As repayment of the loan was found to be irregurar,corporation invoked jurisdiction under section 29 of thestate Financial corporation Act, 1951, whereafter recall_cum-sale notice for realisation of the outstanding amountwas issued on ro-oz.2oo2. However, despite issuance ofsuch notice, the loan amount was not creared.consequenfly, corporation initiated auction proceedings byputting up the secured assets for sale. In this connection,auction was held on 1 l.L2.2oo2 and, 12.L2.2wilr Both the ice factory along with the land on which it was constructedi.e., 800 square yards as well as the adjoining land of 4000square yards were put to auction.

5. It appears that there was dispute between two biddersi.e., Gaffoor and D.B.Narendra Babu. Arleging that his bidwas not accepted though higher, D.B.Narendra Babu filedw.P.No.2556o of 2oo2 before the then High court of AndhraPradesh. The said writ petition was disposed of on11.08.2003 directing the corporation to hold negotiationswith both the disputing bidders and thereafter to proceed inaccordance with law.

6. Petitioncr also filed writ petition No.23734 of 2oo3before the then High court of Andhra pradesh allegingseveral irregularities in the auction process, including notrealising the full value of the auctioned land. Further prayermade was that the auction process should be confined tothe ice factory as well as the B0o square yards of land overwhich it was constructed and that the collateral security of4ooo square yards of rand should be excruded from theauction process initiated for recovery of the arrears.

\

\

A prayer was also made for waiver of some amount (interest)under the One Time Settlement Scheme. The writ petitionwas contested by the Corporation. After hearing the matter,a learned Single Judge passed the order dated 24.12.2003holding that there was no difliculty in separating theprimary security from the collateral security. Complaint ofthe petitioner could not be brushed aside. Learned Singleunder the One Time Settlement Scheme. The writ petitionwas contested by the Corporation. After hearing the matter,a learned Single Judge passed the order dated 24.12.2003holding that there was no difliculty in separating theprimary security from the collateral security. Complaint ofthe petitioner could not be brushed aside. Learned SingleJudge noted that D.B.Narendra Babu had emerged as thehighest bidder for both the properties. In the circumstances,learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in thefollowing terms:highest bidder for both the properties. In the circumstances,learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in thefollowing terms:

a) The sale of the Industrial Unit as well as theadjoining land of the petitioner wherein, the 3.d respondenthas emerged as the highest bidder, is set-aside;

b) The respondents I and 2 shall issue freshnotification within four weeks. from the date.of receipt of acopy of this order inviting the tenders separately for theUnit viz. M/s. Mobina Ice Makers, Plot No.43, AmeenpurVillage, Patancheru Mandal,. Medak District in 8OO sq.yards and for the remaining land belonging to thepetitioner1'

c) Since the petitioner expresses apprehension as tothe fairness in the bidding process, the respondents 1 and2 shall ensure that the Mandal Revenue Officer, L

\

Patancheru Mandal is present at the time of receiving thebids;bids;

d) In the event of the bids received for the adjoiningland are for a sum equivalent to or in excess of the liabilityof the petitioner towards respondents 1 and 2, tine sameshall be finalized and there would not be any necessity toconduct the sale of the unit. The 3'a respondent shall alsobe entitled to participate in such tenders and bids;

e) In case the bids or tenders for the land is notsuflicient to liquidate the liability of the petitioner,respondents 1 and 2 shall be entitled to proceed to receivethe bids and tenders for the Unit also. If the aggregate ofthe bids of the land and Unit is more than Rs.20 lakhs, itshall be confirmed in favour of the successful bidder. Onthe other hand, if such aggregate of the bids is less thanRs.2O lakhs, the sale shall be confrrmed in favour of the 3,arespondent on the basis of the offer made by him in theprevious tender; 0 No order as to costs.

7. It appears that the aforesaid order dated 24.12.2002was assailed by the successful auction bidder,D.B.Narendra Babu by filing writ appear No.2B0 of 2oo4.A Division Bench of the then Andhra pradesh High courtpassed order dated 11.02.2004 whereby order of the learned' singre Judge dated 24. r2.20o3 was set aside. The writpetition was directed to be decided afresh after grving \

\

opportunity of hearing to all the contesting partiesThereafter writ petition No.23734 of 2OO3 was heard afresh.On remand, learned Single Judge vide the order datedThereafter writ petition No.23734 of 2OO3 was heard afresh.On remand, learned Single Judge vide the order datedL7.O8.2O04 observed as under:

6. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner hadobtained loan from the respondent-corporation in the year1990 and the said liability was not fully discharged andtherefore, the respondent-corporation has taken recourse toput the unit as well as adjoining land for sale. Accordingly,notifications have been issued and the auction was held onll-12-2OO2 and |2-L2-2OO2. The 3.d respondent hereinhas offered a sum of Rs.20,O0,OOO/- for the entire extent.Having regard to the grievance of the petitioner that sincethe entire property had mixed up and put up in one sale,necessarily it invited a very low offers and whereas if theopen land and the unit can be separated it is going toreceive far better and higher efforts, which would not onlydischarge the liability to the Corporation, but also candischarge the other liabilities.

7. The learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf ofthe Corporation did not seriously oppose the said proposalof the petitioner for separating the propert5r into two andinviting tenders accordingly. However, by taking intoconsideration the objection raised on behalf of therespondent No.3, who was submitted the offer ofRs.2O,OO,OOO/-, it is not permissible for this Court to travelbeyond the terms as already fixed in an auction, which isinitiated under Section 29 of the S.F.C. Act. However, in agiven circumstances, without giving any.go bye to the very \

1"

I

n

auction as sought to be conducted and with a view to findout for any such comparatively better offers, and especiaryif it can be found that not only the unit holder, but also thecorporation is deprived of such higher amounts, this courtout for any such comparatively better offers, and especiaryif it can be found that not only the unit holder, but also thecorporation is deprived of such higher amounts, this courtcan give appropriate directions in the interest ofjustice.

B. Thus, reconciling the grievance of the petitioner andthe objection of the highest bidder, rearned Singre Judge onremand disposed of the writ petition by directing therespondents as under

8' In the circumstances, the writ petition is accordinglydisposed of directing the respondent Nos. r and 2 herein toproceed with the sale of the industrial unit and theadjoining land separately by inviting tenders separately. Itshall be open for the 3'a respondent herein to participate insuch tenders. It is needless to mention that in the event thebid for the required amount received for the adjoining land,the liability of the respondent Nos.l and 2 herein is that thesame can be finarized without any necessity to conduct thesale of the unit- However, in t].e event the amount underthe bids for both the rand and the unit is less than theRs.2O,OO,OOO/- as offered by the 3.d respondent, the salewhich has a-lready been conducted in favour of the 3,arespondent shalt be conlirmed in pursuance of the prpviousauction. No costs.

.9.

Thereafter, a fresh advertisement for sare was issued by the Corporatr.on on 2S.1l.2OO4in terms of the directions directionsof the learned singre Judge. According to the corporation, \

I

seven offers were received for the 4000 square yards.Auction bids were opened and finalised. The bid amountoffered by D.B.Narendra Babu was found to be the highest.On payment of the entire sale consideration, 4000 squareyards of land was handed over to the purchaser on20.o4.2005.

10. Petitioner was intimated by way of telegram on28,04.2005 to take back possession of the ice factory andthe land to the extent of 800 square yards which werehanded over to the petitioner by the Corporation on05.05.2005 itself. The excess sale amount ofRs.13,25,802.00 (being in excess of the outstanding dues)was paid to the petitioner on 05.05.2005. On the same day,a sale deed was executed by the Corporation in favour of thepurchaser for the 4000 square yards of open land.

11. Petitioner made a representation on 12.08.2005 forwaiver of interest to the extent of 50% which would result infurther refund of Rs.9,14,932.OO from the sale price.Corporation rejected the said request vide intimation dated24.O8.2OO5 stating that sale had been completed, L\

r-

whereafter excess sale consideration was paid to thepetitioner. Notwithstanding such rejection, petitionerpetitioner. Notwithstanding such rejection, petitionercontinued to communicate with the corporation by writingletters to the corporation spanning from 31.0g.200s to25.09.2017. However, corporation refused to entertain theclaim for waiver of interest.letters to the corporation spanning from 31.0g.200s to25.09.2017. However, corporation refused to entertain theclaim for waiver of interest.

12. It was at that stage petitioner filed writ petitionNo.44296 of 2ol7 before the combined High court ofTelangana and Andhra Pradesh. prayer made in the saidwrit petition was for a direction to approve the rebate ofRs.9,14,932.OO to the petitioner. Learned Single Judgenoted that the party-in-person could not cite any rule orpolicy of the government entitling him to craim waiver ofinterest. [n the absence of such a right, relief sought for bythe petitioner could not be granted. Learned single Judgefurther noted that bidding process leading to sale of 4000square yards of land was not questioned by the, petitioner.That apart, petitioner had admittedly receivedRs.13,25,9o2.oo from the corporation after settling the loandues' Thus, by the order dated 2g.og-2olg, Iearned singre \t

Judge declined to interfere with the sale process after longthirteen years had passed since auction took place, more soin the absence of the auction purchaser. Therefore, the writpetition was dismissed.thirteen years had passed since auction took place, more soin the absence of the auction purchaser. Therefore, the writpetition was dismissed.

13. Assailing the legality and validity of the order dated29.08.2018, petitioner preferred appeal before the DivisionBench being writ appeal No.L235 of 2018. Division Benchsummed up the facts in the following m€urner:

2. The appellant-writ petitioner availed a loan fromAPSFC. That led to distress action. It culminated inauction. There was a Writ Petition before this Court atone point of time between competing tenderers. Therewas also yet another Writ Petition by the appellantpleading that the entire h5pothecated propert5r need notbe brought to sale. That was allowed by this Court.Thereafter another sale was notified. That auction wascarried to its logical end. It culminated in the finalizationof the tenders in the presence of the appellant. Thereafteron 5.5.2OO5, after appropriating that part of the saleconsideration which would satisfy the debt, outstandingwith APSFC, an amount of Rs. l3,2S,BO2l- was paid tothe appellant. Possession was delivered under apanchanama. This Writ Petition is instituted in 2OLT bythe appellant pleading that he was entifled to waiver ofcertain amounts and consequently, he is entitled torefund of Rs. [g,l4,g32l- ]over and above the amount ofRs. 13,25,8021- paid to him on 5.5.2005.

\ \

h

14. Thereafter, Division Bench vide the order datedr9.o9.2o18 declined to interfere with the order passed bythe learned Single Judge and held that petitioner was notentitled to claim interest waiver. That apart, the mattercould not be raked up thirteen years after the sale hadtaken place. [t was held as follows:

3. Hearing the appellant, party-in-person on thedifferent aspects of the matter and the learned StandingCounsel for the APSFC, we see that the learned SingleJudge was justified in saying that this matter could notbe raked up after 13 years after the sale had taken place.That position notwithstanding, w€ may also notice thatall matters relating to due execution, possession andsatisfaction of the proceedings for r'ecovery stoodconcluded and thereby nothing remains for furtherconsideration through judicial intervention as betweenthe parties after 5.5.2005, even if it. could have been acase where the question of availability of waiver ofinterest was to be deliberated upon. All thisnotwithstanding, there is no plea by the appel.lant eitherbefore us or in the Writ Petition as to what probability oflaw or binding guideline of SFC, either under the StateFinancial Corporation Act or otherwise, which wouldenable the appellant to claim interest waiver.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to findany legal infirmity or jurisdictionar error in the order of \

\

the learned Single Judge on the basis of the facts inhand. This Writ Appeal, therefore, fails.

5. In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.

15. Party-in-person sought for review of the order dated19.O9.2O 18 passed by the Division Bench in Review I.A.No.lof 2018. In the proceedings held on 3t.Ot.2O2O, DivisionBench did not find any itlegality or error apparent on theface of the order dated 19.09.2018. Accordingly, the reviewpetition was dismissed.

16. Petitioner again filed t.A. (sR) No.41oB0 of 2021 for re-consideration. A Division Bench of this court vide the orderdated 10.11 .2021 held that once a review petition isdismissed by a speaking order after taking into account thegrounds raised by the party-in-person, no second reviewwould be maintainable on similar facts and grounds.Accordingly, I.A. (sR) No.a1o8o of 2021 was dismissed.

L7. undeterred by such dismissal, party-in-person againfiled I.A. (sR) No.8lL73 of 2o2l for re-consideration of the \\orders passed in review and to review the ord.er passed inwrit appeal. By the order dated 14.02.2022, a Division h 't, Bench of this court noted that all the grounds raised werenothing but repetition of the earlier grounds. Though thecourt thought of imposing costs upon the party-in-person,considering his advanced age no such costs were imposed.However, the review petition was dismissed.

18. It was thereafter that the present petition has beenfiled. Though the grounds in the form of additionalstatement have been couched in somewhat intemperate andunacceptable language, we have decided to ignore the sameafter having interacted with the party-in-person whoappeared to be in distress. Unfortunately, there is tittle thatwe can do having recorded the sequence of events. Even if aconsiderate view is taken, it is too late in the day to put theclock back. why the petitioner failed to repay the loan, w€do not know. When loan obtained from linancial institutionsare not repaid, the law will take its own course. These arematters of private contract between the financialinstitutions and the borrower. That apart, all grievances,perceived or rear, are not capable of judiciar determination.

I,

we, therefore, do not find any good reason to entertain thepresent application. The szune is accordingly dismissed.

Registry to furnish a free copy of this order to theparty-in-person.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall standclosed.closed.

SD/. K. SAILESHIDEPUW REGISTRAR,/TRUE COPYIIsEcnoN o#rr".*

\To,'1. Mr. Syed Yousuf, Proprietor, Mobina lce Makers, H.No.TRT-119817-2-145314,Sanathnagar, Hyderabad - 5000182. one CC td tvts. V. N. t-OHlTA, Advocate [oPUCl3. One CC to SRI K.V. RUSHEEK REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]4. Two CD Copies.

MPGJP&.,-

\ \

(^

I

I

ti

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/03/2023

ORDERI.A.(SR) NO.84499 OF 2022-t'.iE [ST/r][T.,q]IN-tW.A.NO.1235 0F 2018.:1"1 1 [H?n ][2[u]]1:.ffillJ--:; r..ri '-',.'r.'.',1'

DISMISSING THE I.A.(SR) NO.84499 AF 2022.

6\Nnl\\