K RADHIKA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Orders of attachment under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act'), under the various Government Orders are under challenge in these writ petitions. As the questions involved are identical, they are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners contended that a reading of Section 3 of the Act discloses the power of the State Government to be confined to an order of attachment only in respect of the properties owned by the financial establishments and not beyond. The petitioners claim that the respective properties ordered to be attached by G.O. Ms. No. 212, Home (General-B) Department, dated 22.09.2001 and G.O. Ms. No. 259, Home (General-B) Department, dated 19.11.2001 respectively were purchased by them under registered Sale Deeds as specified in the writ affidavits and the petitioners, who purchased the properties for valuable consideration bona fide were not shown to be in any way connected with the financial establishment and no enquiry was conducted before the proposed attachments and no notice was issued to the petitioners. Relying on Madanapalle Hospitals (P) Ltd., Madanapalle vs. Government of A.P. and Others, 2009 4 ALD 185 the petitioners desire the orders of attachment issued by the first respondent to be declared illegal and unlawful and to be set aside. The petitioner in W.P. No. 32814 of 2010 traces her title to Ac. 10.96 cents in Sy. Nos. 24/1 and 26/2A of Morpapudi Village, Krishna District, through a registered Sale Deed, dated 27.06.2001, in favour of her deceased husband, on whose death in 2007 the petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment. The petitioner in W.P. No. 32815 of 2010 traces his ownership over Ac. 2.58 cents in Sy. Nos. 760/1, 2 and Ac. 0.31 cents in Sy. No. 762/3 of Ventrapragada Village, Krishna District, through a registered Sale Deed, dated 13.07.2000. The petitioner in W.P. No. 32816 of 2010 traces her title to Ac. 12.14 cents in Sy. Nos. 24/1, 14, 23 and 15 of Morpudi Village, Krishna District, through a registered Sale Deed, dated 27.06.2001. The petitioner in W.P. No. 32817 of 2010 traces his title to Ac. 14.88 cents in Sy. Nos. 25/1, 29/3, 26/2 and 24 of Morpudi Village, Nuzvidu Mandal, Krishna District, through a registered Sale Deed, dated 26.06.2001. The petitioners claim that they had nothing to do with the financial establishment-Krushi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited.

(2.) In the counter affidavits of the second respondent, it was contended that on the complaint of one Dr. M.V. Kumar and other depositors on 15.08.2011 about non-payment of their matured fixed deposits by the management, Chairman, Vice Chairman, Directors and staff of Krushi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Ranigunj, Secunderabad, in spite of demands by the depositors, a case under Crime No. 156 of 2001 under Section 5 of the Act was registered against the accused in respect of amounts running to Rs. 31 crores. The investigation was handed over to the Crime Investigation Department and during the course of investigation, it was disclosed that due amounts were failed to be repaid to the depositors and there were no chances of return of the amounts to the depositors. Then the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Hyderabad, addressed the State Government to pass an ad-interim order under Section 3 of the Act for attachment of properties of the financial establishment and consequently, the relevant Government Orders were passed. Later, a charge sheet was also filed before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, in C.C. No. 7 of 2001. The Metropolitan Sessions Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, also made the ad-interim attachment absolute in the respective petitions filed before that Court for the purpose and the Court also ordered in respect of specified items disposal of the properties by the official liquidator by sale by public auction and deposit of the sale proceeds into Court, etc. Under the circumstances, the second respondent desired the writ petitions to be dismissed.

(3.) The petitioners claimed in reply that the petitions in respect of making the ad-interim attachment absolute in respect of the properties of the petitioners are still pending and they contended that the orders passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Court in various petitions are not connected with them.