KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. GRAMA SWARAJYA SANGAM
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 2025-01-28. KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. GRAMA SWARAJYA SANGAM. Read the judgment and case details...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY ( TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1071 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28. 03. 2024 in W. P. No. 9226 of 2015 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Khadi And Village Industries Commission, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Gramodayam Ida Road, Villeparle (West), Mumbai-400064. 2. Khadi and Village Industries Commission, State Office at Door No. 56-3- 10A, Raminenivari Street, Patamata, Vijayawada A. P, Pin code. 520010 Rep. by its State Director ... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND Grama Swarajya Sangam, Ongole, Rep. by its Secretary Smt K. Aravinda W/o Dr. Muratidhar Reddy, Aged 38 years. At D. No. 20/7/62(1), Mangamuru Road, Ongole, Prakasam District ...
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER lA NO: 3 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 suspend the operation of the Order dated 28. 03. 2024 in W. P. No. 9226 of 2015 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI RAJENDRA BUSSA a/b SRI K. CHIDAMBARAM, Sr. COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent: SRI P. S. RAJASEKHAR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010225712024 Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sr. No:-29 AT AMARAVATI [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 1071 of 2024 Khadi and Village Industries Commission and another ... Appellants Vs. Grama Swarajya Sangam ... Respondent ********** Advocate for Appellants Mr. Rajendra Bussa a/b Mr. K. Chidambaram, Sr. Counsel Advocate for Respondent Mr. P. S. Rajasekhar CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 28th January 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR.
CJ: The present Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order impugned, dated 28. 03. 2024, passed in W. P. No. 9226 of 2015. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the writ petitioner is a society who obtained loan from Khadi and Village Industries Commission / respondent No. 1 / appellant herein and as a security created an equitable mortgage with regard to the immovable properties belonging to the petitioner society. The petitioner claims that an amount of Rs. 31,84,000/- was deposited towards the loan account and nothing was further payable to appellant Commission. W. A. No,1071 of 2024 Representations were filed with the appellant Commission to release the property documents pertaining to the mortgage properties lying with them. This was done in the year 2014. By virtue of communication, dated 07. 05.
2014, the appellant Commission, while referring to the prayer made by the petitioner to release the property documents and acknowledging the fact that an amount of Rs. 31,84,000/- has been deposited towards the loan prohibited the office bearers of the petitioner from disposing of the properties owned by the institution, except for the purposes which were authorized by the appellant Commission. The communication, dated 07. 05. 2014, came to be challenged by the petitioner in W. P. No. 9226 of 2015, which was allowed by virtue of judgment and order impugned, dated 28. 03. 2024. 3. The learned single Judge in the judgment and order impugned to the effect that there observed that there was no material placed on record was any communication ever issued at any point of time by the appellant Commission mentioning the details regarding the dues payable by the had been addressed petitioner and that communication, dated 07. 05. 2014, without furnishing any such information. 4.
The learned single Judge also dealt with the objection of the appellant Commission raised during the course of the arguments before it the affidavit on regarding the competence of the deponent who had sworn no basis laid out in the behalf of the writ petitioner and held that there was W. A. No. 1071 of 2024 counter affidavit. In the absence whereof, it was held that the objection did not merit any consideration. 5. In those circumstances, the writ petition was allowed, impugned letter, dated 07. 05. 2014, was held to be unsustainable in law and set aside.
The learned single Judge, however, further directed the respondents/appellants herein to reconcile the loan account of the petitioner and intimate the outstanding amount, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order and in case no amount was due and payable to the appellant Commission, then the title deeds in respect of the land mortgaged by the petitioner were directed to be returned within the prescribed period. The outstanding amount, if any, upon intimation was directed to be repaid within the specified period. 6. In the present Writ Appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to justify as to how the view expressed by the learned single Judge was unsustainable.
Admittedly, the appellants would have no justification to retain the property documents if the loan amount was repaid already, and if there was anything due and payable still by the petitioner, the order made enough provision for securing the interest of the appellants in that regard with liberty to and the the appellant to communicate the amount due and payable documents were ordered to be returned to the petitioner only upon payment of the outstanding amount. W. A. No. 1071 of 2024 7. In our opinion, the view expressed by the learned single Judge merits no interference. We find that the present Writ Appeal has absolutely no merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited to be utilized for the with the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority benefit of children who suffer from visual and hearing impairment. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.
RAMESH BABU deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Commission 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Khadi And Village Industries Gramodayam Irla Road, Villeparle (West), Mumbai-400064. State 2. The State Director, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Office at Door No. 56-3-1OA, Raminenivari Street, Patamata, Vijayawada, A. P, Pin code. 520010. 3. One CC to Sri Rajendra Bussa, Advocate [OPUC] ^ 4. One CC to Sri P. S. Rajasekhar, Advocate [OPUC H. No. 2- 5. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legal Service Authority, near A. P. 23/554-A, V. S. R. Commercial Complex, Malkapuram Village, Mandal, GuntuC Secretariat, 0pp. To Traffic Police Station, Thulluru District-522238. 6. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 OF JUDGMENT r m X 12 FEB 2025 WA. No. 1071 of 2024 ^ . Current Section DISMISSING THE W. A. WITH COSTS
Source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.