TAMARIND SEEDS PRODUCTS OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed for the issue of a Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash G.O. Ms. No. 1651 dated 30th September, 1978, issued in pursuance of Section 52-A of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 as amended by Act No. 18 of 1977, by declaring the said Amendment Act as unconstitutional, illegal and void ab initio.

(2.) The relevant facts, which led to the filling of this Writ Petition, in brief, are: The petitioner is registered as a small scale industry to manufacture tamarind seed powder. It approached the 4th respondent, which is the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd , a Government Company, for allotment of a plot in the Industrial Development Area, Kothur, Shadnagar Taluk, Mahboobnagar District, and so Plot No. 1 in the said Area comprising Ac. 3-33 cents was allotted. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the State Bank of Hyderabad for financial assistance and for all banking facilities; and in principle, the said Bank agreed to sanction the banking facilities to an extent of Rs. 13,00,000/-. The petitioner, however, approached the 4th respondent for a bridge loan of Rs. 6,00,000/-, which was duly sanctioned. The petitioner invested a sum of Rs 10,00,000/- together with the said loan of Rs. 6,00,000/-, and commenced construction of the factory building and acquired the machinery. When the factory building was nearing completion, the Railway Authorities took objection for the construction of the factory and directed the petitioner to obtain permission from them, on which the petitioner approached the 4th respondent for obtaining the due permission from the Railway Authorities. It is further averred that the construction of the factory building was with the prior approval of the 4th respondent, which should have taken care at the time of allotment of the Plot, to see that there would not be any objection from any Authority. However, the Railway Authorities, on being addressed by the 4th respondent on 1-1-1976 for treating the case of the petitioner as a special case and to permit the petitioner to go ahead with the construction, wanted the petitioner to furnish a declaration to the effect that any superstructure made by the petitioner would be removed without claiming any compensation amount whenever the Railway Authorities communicate to acquire the land in question. This was not acceptable to the petitioner. It was the duty of the 4th respondent, therefore, to have known about the future plans of the Railway Department or any other restriction the allotted plot would suffer. Several representations were made to the 4th respondent to obtain the necessary permission from the concerned; but, to the petitioner's dismay, no such permission was obtained. Therefore, there was no alternative for the petitioner but to abandon the progress of the construction. Thereafter, the petitioner laid a claim against the 4th respondent for payment of Rs. 16,30,000/-which the petitioner had to incur. Inspite of several letters, the claim was neither denied nor decided. In fact, the claim was even accepted by the 4th respondent on 16-1-1979.

(3.) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has amended the A.P, Revenue Recovery Act; and under Section 52-A, a notification as contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1651 Revenue (N) Department dated 30th September, 1978 was issued, wherein it is stated that any amount due to any Government Company shall be recovered as if it is arrears of land revenue. By virtue of this notification issued through the aforesaid G.O, under Ssction 52-A of the amended Act, the Collector, to whom, it is apprehended, a certificate has been issued at the instance of the 4th respondent, is proceeding to recover from the petitioner. It is this Act of the Collector to recover the loan amount as arrears of revenue that is challenged in this Writ Petition on the grounds, inter alia; (1) The Amendment Act 18 of 1977 is ultra vires. (2) Section 52-A is repugnant to the Central Revenue Recovery Act (Act No. 1 of 1890). (3) Loans due to the Government only are recoverable under the Revenue Recovery Act and not loans to public bodies which are incorporated Under the Act and, therefore, the recovery is opposed to Article 251 of the Constitution of India. (4) There are no guidelines given to the Authority concerned and, the Collector is not entitled to recover the amount as arrears of revenue without giving any opportunity to the debtor. (5) The 4th respondent is not entitled to recover the loan amount since it is obligatory on its part, as per the contractual conditions, to have allotted the site to the petitionei free from legal infirmities or hurdles.