NAVATA ECO BRICKS Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of 1st respondent-bank in threatening to dispossess and take physical possession of petitioner's leasehold property of officecum-industrial building (for short, 'the schedule property'), pursuant to the order dtd. 22/4/2022 in Crl.M.P.No.1072/2022 in C.F.No.390/2022 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, and notice of warrant dtd. 8/6/2022 issued by the Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the subject property without considering the representation of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and devoid of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent- Bank not to interfere with the petitioner's possession of the schedule property.

(2.) The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

(3.) The 1st respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition inter alia contending thus: