High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus, declare the action of thd respondents in not considering the representation made by the petitioner for retum of the original documents Dated 20.11.2024 in spite of producing No-due certificate Daled 11.O1 .2024 vide Ref.No. CARBC/1 '1012024158823 as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice under article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent to forthwith return the original documents to the petitioner as T per the No-due certificate Dated 11.01 .2024 vide Ref. CARBC/1 1012024158823 pending disposal of the above writ petition. No. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR VEERJALA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI T.P.ACHARYA, SC FOR TSCSCL Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI G.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHI, SC FOR The Court made the following: ORDER Y (1', THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.34538 of 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation made by the petitioner for return of the original documents dated 20. 11.2024 in spite of producing the no-due certiltcate dated 11.O1.2024 ulde Ref.No.CARBC/ llOl2O24 l5BB23 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has repaid the loan as a security of which the original documents of the property have been deposited and when the petitioner had sought release of the documents, respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 16.O1.2024 to respondent No.4-Bank to withhold the documents. Cha.l.lenging the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.2348 of 2024 and uide order dated 02.02.2024, this Court has set aside the said notice dated 16.01.2024 and directed the respondents therein to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 24.01.2024 and to pass appropriate orders .-tkreon in accordance with iaw. Thereafter, respondent No.2 2 TMOJ w P_34538_2024 \ issued another notice dated 14.06.2024 by mentioning that an amount of Rs. 14.89 crores is due for the Kharif and Rabi seasons of 2022-23 by reiterating the same old demand notice and without mentioning as to how the amount has been determined. The proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, 'w,ere also initiated. The same was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.3045l of 2024 and, uide order dated 3O.1O.2O24, this Court has granted interim direction to the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the demand notice No.A/SOO/2O24, dated 16.01.2024. The interim order was granted until further orders on 27.11.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner: submitted that in spite of having knowledge of the above interim orders, respondent No.3 has addressed a letter to respondent No.4 uid-e letter dated 17.01.2O24 notto issue the original documents (which were kept as loan security) to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner has paid the entire loan amount of Rs.8O,OO,00O/- to respondent No.4, for which no due certificate was also issued on 11.01.2024 and therefore, there I I 7 r- 3 TMO,J wP_34538_2024 was no impediment for returning of the original documents relating the secured property.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation relied upon the averments in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and submitted that Smt.Kotha Laxmi, the Proprietor of the petitioner rice mill, has entered into an agreement with the corporation to custom mill the paddy and deliver the resultant rice to the corporation, but the petitioner has misappropriated 6196'762 Mts of CMR paddy and thus caused loss to the corporation to a tune of Rs.2O.72 crores. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner was also involved in storing PDS rice in the rice mill with an intention to deliver the same under the guise of CMR to the Food Corporation of India and the Civil Supplies Corporation and therefore, the action under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was initiated and the order of confiscation was passed. It is submitted that a criminal case in FIR No.12 of 2024 has also been registered under Section 42O of IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is submitted that without making the payment for the loss caused to the 4 TMDJ w P_34538_2024 corporation, the petitioner is trying to transfer the property to the third parties after obtaining the original documents from the bank and that the petitioner,s daughter_in_law, Smt. .Kotha Sravanthi, is also one of the proprietors in the rice mill M/s. Sai Santhoshi Industries, pathur, which has also misappropriated the paddy of 9155 Mts supplied during KMS 2022-23 worth 30.63 crores and a criminal case is also Iiled against the said industry uid.eFIR No. 75 of 2024. It is stated that as per the agreement conditions, the respbndent authorities have initiated the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, to recover the misappropriated paddy cost from the miller and in accordance therewith, the respondents have issued a letter to respondent No.4 balk not to issue the original documents, which are kept as loan securit5r. Respondent No.2 has also filed copies of the partnership deed of M/s. Sai Santhoshi Industries, custom milling agreement, Inspection report, FIR No.75 of 2024 and, the notice issued to the miller and the demand notice as proof of liability of the owner of secured properties in support of their contentions. I Y n 5 TMO,] wP_34538_2024

4. karned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that no demand notice has been issued to Smt. Kotha Sravanthi and that the properties of Kotha Sravanthi have not been attached by the authorities in respect of any dues of Sri Sai Santhoshi Industries and therefore, respondent No.3 could not have issued any notice to respondent No.4 not to return the original documents. Therefore, he sought a direction to respondent No.4 to return the original documents of the secured properties.

5. Having regard to the riva-l contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the property, which is kept as security for the loan taken by the petitioner, is the propert5r of one Kotha Sravanthi, who is none other than the daughter-in- law of the Proprietor/petitioner, Kotha Laxmi. As seen from the documents filed along with the counter affidavits of the respondents, there is no order ol attachment of the subject property by the respondents for recovery of any of the due amounts. The documents that are sought to be returned a-re in respect of properties in Sy.No.62 situated at Bahadurpally Village, Qutbullapur Mandal and Sy.No.2O6/28 situated at Devanpally Village, Kamareddy District whereas the r.l 6 TMDJ wP 34538 2024 propefties which are attached in respect of Sai Salthoshi Industries are in Sy.No.42/U/I/2 and 43/E.E/4 of Pathur Village, Medak Mandal. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that respondent No.3 cannot direct respondent No.4 not to return the original documents, which have been kept as securit5r for the loan taken by the writ petitioner, in spite of the entire loan being repaid by the writ petitioner.

6. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and respondent No.4 is directed to return the original documents to the writ petitioner within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. 1. The principal Secre ^ 9 ei reia iiJ i E,tfi i#:: , il[:fl"d,-"S,,_y,:nag"er, 'o'x"3[11[fHc#IJXX //,RUE coPYtt secrrllrrrcen n.,, e r Affa i rs De pt, Ht53,:13!i.9#t :i ?Bi',uffi "o r6tansa"i'siit", 6iviis.uppries Corporalion Ltd , i 1iffi$g$sgg61p1ue*+i:* ll+- !?ry :, f ffl;gglt;5it#,alrl?n'^I^ff er-l',?"."".raal:r"ropucl 3Z"W ! i HIGH COURT DATE D:2 010312025 ORDER WP.No.34538 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ( J o HE S,4 T€ 1 2 1 t'lAfi 2025 t,r *qr,.'.-tef ! { I ( I l