Dismissed

National High School v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Jul 2023WP/19397/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the seizure of school premises by an Advocate Commissioner under the SARFAESI Act was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner approached with unclean hands for failing to comply with a prior order to vacate the premises, rendering the present petition non-entertainable.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the Writ Petition without costs and closure of pending miscellaneous applications.

National High School Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁶⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:^'19397 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

National High School, Run by Om Educational Society, Begumpet, Secunderabad. Rep by its president Jagityal Mohan Babu S/o. Jagannadham, Age.61 Years,

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The station House Officer, Begumpet Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad

¶13

3 Union Bank of lndia, Rep by its Chief manager Bownepally branch, Secunderabad

¶14

Smt. Srilatha, Advocate Commissioner appointed by Xl Add JFCI\tl, Secunderabad.

¶15

A. Shashikala, S/o Narendar Goud, Aged. 50 years, Occ. House wife, Fyo H.No.- 0, Flat No. G3, A2 Block, Mayuri lvlarg Apartments, Begumpet, Secunderabad, T.S.

¶16

G. Thirumala Vijaya Krishna, Aged about 50 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o , H.No.0 Flat No. 201 Sai SR Heights Rajender Reddy Nagar, Chandanagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

G. Thirumala Poornima, Aged about 45^years, Occ -Business^{Fl/o H} No H.No.0 Flat No.201 sai SR Hights Rajender Reddy Nagar, Chandanagar, Hyderabad

¶18

B. G. Thirumala Srikanth, Aged about 43^years Occ-Business^{Rl/o H No H.No.O} Flat No.201 Sai SR Heights Rajender Reddy Nagar, Chandanagar, Hyderabad

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

-Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be}

¶21

¶22

pleased to issue a Vrit, Order, or Direction more partcularl y one in the nature of WRIT OF I\IANDAI L.S the action of ihe Responden No. I n r ot following the principals of natur I Justice by issuing 15 days prior n,rti:e pre-conditioned mentioned in the l arrant of commission issued u/s 14 of l'HE SARFASI ACT 2OO2 in Crl.lr/ P.l'lc 008 of 2023 in S.R.No 4864 of 2023:rir;ing out of 0.A 610 OF 2022 on th€ 1 e of Xl ADDL CHIEF METROFOLII-r\r, IVIAGISTRATE at Secunderabad datr I 12- 04-2023 and furtlrer seizurt: of tt o school building on 04-05-2023 is illeg I arDitrary and violative of Article r 1 4, 19 , 21 and 300-4 of constitution of ln ri ii anc consequently direct the Resporrclr nl No 4 to issue 15 days notice to tl're re rtitioner / occupant in the pren ises rrf the H/o 1-'1 1-86/4 Begumpet, Secund ra bad before submitting the comp lianc:€ r,lport of warrant on 21-O7-2023 to the ) LDDL J FCt\4 Secunderabad.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

Petrtion un,le !je,:tion 151 CPC praying that in the r;rr:unrstances stated in the affidavit filerd n support of the petition, the Higlr Co,-r^{-1 .na,/} be pleased to set aside the irreg rl;rr action of the Respondent no .4 rla ed 04-05-2023 in seizure of the scho< r;f the petrtioner by re-opening thr: sarn: r;ch,tol,

¶25

Counsel for the Pet tioner: M/S. P. LALITHA KAMESH

¶26

Counsel for the Res oondent No.1 and 2: GP FOR HOME

¶27

Counsel for the Rer x)ndent No.3: SRl. S. ARUN KUMAR, SC FO]R THE UNION BANK OF INDIA

¶28

Counsel for the Res )c,ndent No.4 to 8: NONE APPEARED

¶29

The Court made th€ following: ORDER

¶30

--7

¶31

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KI,IMAR SHAVILI} AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^RAJESHWARRAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.19397 OF 2023

¶33

ORDER:^(Per Hon'ble the ALlurg Chief Justrce^{Abhinar.dKumar Sha,ili)}

¶34

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of India,}

¶35

is filed seeking the following relief:

¶36

"... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more^{particularlyone} in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS the^action of^the Respondent No.4 in not following the^principals of natural^justice by issuing 15 days prior notice a^{pre-conditional requirementas} mentioned in the warrant of commission issued^u/ s^{14 of THE} SARFASI ACT 2OO2 in Crl.M.P.No. 1008 of 2023ⁱⁿ S.R.^{No.4864 of} 2O23 arising out of O.A. 610 OF 2022 on^{the hle of XI ADDL} CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE at Secunderabad^dated12- O4-2O23 and further seizure of the school building^{on O4-O5-2O23} is illegal arbitrary and violative of ArLicIe^{14, 19,21and 300-Aof} constitution of India and consequently direct^{the Respondent No.4} to issue 15 days'notice to the^petitioner/ occupant^{in the premises} of the H/o 1- 1 1-86/A Begumpet, Secunderabad^{before submitting} the compliance report of warrant on 21.07.2023^{to the XI ADDL} JFCM Secunderabad and^pass such^{other orderor orders ..."}

¶37

Heard Sri P. Lalitha Kamesh, learned counsel^{for the petitioner} and Sri S. Arun Kumar, learned^{Standing Counsel appearingfor the} respondent No.3-Bank.

¶38

l,earned counsel for the^{petitioner had contended that the} respondent No.4-Advocate^{Commissioner,withoutfollowing the} principles of natural^justice and without^{issuing 15 days prior notice,} which is a pre-conditional requirement^{under Section 14 of the} Securitisation and Reconstruction^{of FinancialAssetsand Enforcement} of -tecurity Interest Act, 2OO2^(for short,^{'SARFAtrSI ACT'),is trying to}

¶39

¶40

IJAC]& R RN,J Wt.No.r9l97 of 2o 2l

¶41

disposscss llrr: :rliLioner l'rom thc subject prerr ises. ,carned c'ounscl further con lcn(l( I that as per Section 14 of the IARF.\I.)SI Act, 15 days prior not icc hr s L,r be given and only th(:reafto:. t le Aclvocate Comrnissioncr r' n initiatc action. But, in the inst,z r'l . ciLse, r'ro such proccdurc \':rs a k:pted by the respondent No.4-r\dvoc tt ,, Commissioner and she is t n,in. I'r rlispossess thc petitioncr frorn th,: s.rlrjr'ct p|cmiscs, that too, drrrirrg rr czLtion of the sr:hoo1s. Therelcre, apltlo;riate orders be passcd in thr Writ Pctition by <lirccting the responrll: rr I{o.4 Lo issuc 15 d:rys noticr: tr tlre petitioncr anrl allow thc Wri: Petilir,n.

¶42

I.carncd S a rding Counsel appearing for the rr spcndent No.3Bank had i'orrtr rrle<l that thc p(:titioner has earlicr rrppr-oachcd this Court b1, filing ! .l:'.No.1i140 of 20'22 contending thzrt rf 'ea,;onable time is grantcd, it- vou Ld vacate the subject pr{)mise i and handover posscssion 'o (lt, r,'sllondent No.3 Bank. Based tp{trr Sr ch subrnission, this Cotrrl 'r.zr:; [r':rsed to dispose of the said 'tr rit It I r _ior L uirie order, datccl 17.O1.20- 2. pern-ritting the petitioner 1o var. tc the subject premises br 30.( 1.2(t22. But the pctitioner has violzrlr', ttLe said order and is tn'ing to { ri g the issue endlcssly and till rlate, .lt I p,ltitioner has not handcd ovcr p rssession of thr: subject premises tc tl-re respondcnt No.3 Bank irnri i i:. filing petition after petition orrly to clr.ag on thc casc. Thercforc, thcr-c n n o merits in thc Writ Petition anc. :r e s,lmc is liable to be disnt isst:r l.

¶43

HACJ & RRN,J WP.No.t9l97 of 2o2l

¶44

This Court, having considered the rival submissions madc by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that on earlicr occasion, the petitioner has hled W.P.No. 1840 of 2022, and this Court was pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition uide order, dated 77.07.2022, by giving sufficient time to the petitioner till 3O.O4 .2022 to vacate the subject premises and handover possession of the same to the respondent No.3-Bank. But the petitioner has not complied with the said order, dated 17 .O1.2022. Th.e petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. Thereforc, the question of cntertaining the second Writ Petition, at this point of time, on the ground that 15 days prior notice is not issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.4, as per Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, would not arise. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition.

¶45

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶46

Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition

¶47

shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGIST

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO OFFICER

To,

1 One CC to M/s. P.^{Lalitha Kamesh,Advocate} [OPUC] 2 One CC to Sri. S. Arun^{Kumar,SC for Union Bankof lndia[OPUC]} a Two CCs to GP for Home, High^{Court for the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶53

1. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURI

DATED:2110i^t2.023

ORDER

<br>,(
.s
(: ...
{ ).
a-
)
'l .t_
--1( ; ),D>
( ;)'

¶60

WP.No.19397 of 2023

¶61

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶62

WITHOUT C( STS.

National High School v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National High School v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rudrapratap Indian Logistics (Hyderabad) Private Limited Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Smt. Mallepally Lalitha Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Mr Asif Shaikh Vs Union of India

A. Bal Reddy Vs Somesh Kumar C

Devathoti Dhanaraju Vs R.Muthyala Raju, I.A.S

K. Ravinder Vs Smt. Ranjeev R.Acharya, IAS