BANK OF BARODA Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner Bank, seeking verbatim the following relief:

(2.) We have heard the submissions of Sri Srinivas Chitluru, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-Bank; of the learned Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration appearing for respondents 1 to 4; of the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for respondent no.5. We have perused the material record.

(3.) Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts stated by the bank, which are relevant for consideration, in brief, are as follows: The writ petitioner Bank, which is a secured creditor, for realization of its debt due from the M/s. Anjanadri Modern Rice Mill/Principal borrower, who defaulted in repayment of the loan, initiated proceedings under the Act of 2002; and issued a demand notice, on 21.09.2017; on the failure of the principal borrower and the guarantors to discharge of the entire liability, a possession notice was issued; and possession of the secured assets was taken on 10.01.2018; the Bank proceeded for sale of the secured assets by way of E-auction held on 29.06.2018; in the said auction, the 6th respondent, who became the successful bidder, in respect of the subject residential plot no.82, FCI Colony, Nellore, had paid the bid amount within the stipulated time and sought for registration of the sale certificate issued by the bank in his favour, on 30.07.2018; however, when the same was presented for registration, the 4th respondent Sub Registrar refused to register the same citing a letter, dated 29.09.2017, addressed by the 5th respondent/Deputy Assistant Commissioner-II, Commercial Taxes Department, Nellore-I Circle; in the said letter, it is stated by the 5th respondent that the principal borrower is a dealer of the said circle and it fell in arrears of CST (taxes) for various years to a tune of total Rs.11,49,670/- and that the same are due & payable and that the writ petitioner Bank has advertised in newspapers seeking payments of dues to it and for sale of the secured assets and hence, the said letter is addressed to the 5th respondent not to allow any alienations of the properties of the principal borrower namely, the rice mill and land etcetera including plot no.82 in layout plan no.420, unless the parties produce clearance certificate obtained from the appropriate authority of the Commercial Taxes Department; in the said circumstances, the writ petitioner Bank brought to the notice of the 4th respondent the provision of Section 26E of the Act stating that the Bank has got priority and that the debts due to any secured creditor/bank shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority as per Section 26E of the Act of 2002 and that the letter of the 5th respondent is contrary to law; yet, the 4th respondent insisted for clearance certificate from the 5th respondent; the 5th respondent is not issuing clearance certificate; the actions of the respondents 4 & 5 are not legal and are arbitrary and violative of provisions of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice; hence, the writ petition is filed.'