PADMA SRI FINANCE ONGOLE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ONGOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners filed the present writ petition for issuance of writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 20-11-1996 in Rc.F.No.1201/96 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, void, mala fide and without any power or jurisdiction and to declare the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 18-11-1996 in Rc.F. No.2498/96 as illegal and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other suitable orders.

(2.) The petitioners stated that they are eking out their livelihood by doing finance business and they are educated unemployed persons and by sale of some of their properties and taking loans from their nearest relatives, they have started finance business and they have been advancing loans at reasonable rate of interest. It is also stated that in the month of November 1996, the petitioners received summons from 2nd respondent requiring them to attend before him to answer charge under Sections 107 and 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code' for the purpose of convenience). Though several other details have also been furnished, the main ground of attack is that the 2nd respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to issue such notices and to call upon the petitioners to be present before him. It is no doubt stated that this action was initiated by the 2nd respondent at the instance of the 1st respondent.

(3.) Sri T. Rajendra Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners, would submit that the provisions of either 107 or 109 of the Code are not attracted and the 2nd respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to initiate such action 'at the instance of certain parties. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the same was published in the newspapers, N.B.Ws. also had been issued and the impugned proceedings are wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, hence the same are liable to be quashed.