Disposed

P.Hanmantha Rao v. The Collector

Telangana HC1 Oct 2010WP/4605/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner sought rescheduling of an agricultural loan due to drought and restraint from forced land sale. The court followed a prior similar decision and directed the bank to consider the application within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner permitted to apply for loan rescheduling within 6 weeks; respondents directed to consider application expeditiously; notice dated 05.02.2003 not to be given effect to pending decision.

P.Hanmantha Rao Vs The Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 4605 OF 2003

¶3

Dated: 01.10.2010

Between:

P.Hanmantha Rao

..... PETITIONER

AND

The Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy and others

¶9

.....RESPONDENTS

¶10

The Court made the following :

¶11

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶12

WRIT PETITION No. 4605 OF 2003

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of the notification No.D3/2907/2002, dated 08.08.2002 issued by the District Collector, Medak for rescheduling the loan availed by the petitioner whose village is declared as drought affected by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, is arbitrary and illegal. A consequential direction has also been sought not to proceed with forcible recovery of the loan amount by putting the petitioner’s agricultural land for sale.

¶15

This Court, while issuing rule nisi, by order dated 18.03.2003 directed that the respondents shall not proceed with the sale of the petitioner’s agricultural land pursuant to the sale notice dated 05.02.2003 and the said order has been in operation all through.

¶16

Though no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents,

¶17

when the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice that in identical circumstances, this Court disposed of W.P.No.4782 of 2005 and batch, dated 09.06.2006 holding as under:

¶18

“Be that as it may, rescheduling of loans is a matter of course in the financial institutions. There need not be any cut-off date for rescheduling of the loans of the defaulters. Since the petitioners pleaded that they hail from drought-ridden area, it is always open for the respondents to consider the plea of the petitioners for rescheduling of the loans. Therefore, respondents are directed to consider rescheduling of the loans of the petitioners on such application being made by them, within a period of six (6) weeks from today. Thereafter, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders on the same as expeditiously as possible. Till such time, the impugned Orders/Notices cannot be given effect to.

¶19

With the above directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.”

¶20

Since the petitioner herein is also similarly situated, following the above said order, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make an appropriate application for rescheduling the loan availed by him within a period of six (6) weeks from today. Thereafter, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. Till such time, the notice dated 05.02.2003 shall not be given effect to. No costs.

¶21

___________ G. ROHINI, J

¶22

Date: 01.10.2010 Ivd

P.Hanmantha Rao v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Hanmantha Rao v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fishermen Co-Op.Society, Kannala, Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries

Uttara Visakha Sarvodaya Sahayaka Samithi, Rep. by its Vs Khadi and Village Industries Comission

C.Yellamma Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

R.Narasimha Reddy Medak Dist Vs Collector Medak Dist and 2 Others

Kuruba Neelappa Vs Kuruba Devendrappa

Ravindra Chowdary, Vs Dabbara Madhava Naidu