Disposed¶36

Mr.B.Mahendra Kumar, Secbad. v. Tax Recovery Officer, Hyd.

Telangana HC18 Aug 2025WP/6848/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP 6848 of 2008; Telangana High Court; Article 226; writ of certiorari; Tax Recovery Officer Range-16 Hyderabad; notice dated 24-03-2008; Rule 73 Schedule II Income Tax Act 1961; Section 151 CPC; interim order 28.03.2008 restraining arrest; 17-year-old petition; M/s. Prudential Construction Company Ltd. liquidation; former director; arrest restraint not enforced; other legal recourse permitted; disposed without costs; decision 18-08-2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without costs; restraint against arresting the petitioner not to be enforced by the respondent-Department, while the Department remains free to pursue other legal recourse in accordance with law; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. ¶36

Mr.B.Mahendra Kumar, Secbad. Vs Tax Recovery Officer, Hyd. — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 24.03.2008 purportedly issued under Rule 73 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the respondent should be quashed by writ of certiorari as being without authority of law. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

No fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending any further; the Court accordingly intended to dispose of the writ petition rather than decide it further.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The restraint, so far as arresting the petitioner is concerned, shall not be enforced by the respondent-Department.

¶35

Key takeaways

The respondent-Department is free to take appropriate legal recourse other than the step of arresting the petitioner, in accordance with law, and take it to its logical conclusion.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (P. Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao, JJ.; order per P. Sam Koshy, J.) disposed of Writ Petition No. 6848 of 2008, filed in 2008 under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking certiorari against a notice dated 24-3-2008 purportedly issued under Rule 73 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Tax Recovery Officer, Range-16, Hyderabad. The petitioner, a former director of M/s. Prudential Construction Company Ltd. (since gone into liquidation), had obtained an interim order on 28.03.2008 restraining the respondent from arresting him till 04.04.2008, which continued in force for almost 17 years; the summons under challenge was issued post liquidation. Holding that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending any further, the Court disposed of it, directing that the restraint so far as arresting the petitioner is concerned shall not be enforced by the respondent-Department, while leaving the respondent free to take appropriate legal recourse other than arresting the petitioner, in accordance with law, and take it to its logical conclusion. Disposed of without costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

¶1

[^348e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 6848 OF 2008

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mr. B. Mahender Kumar., S/o. Shri B.Manil Rao, aged 61 years, R/o.'107, lnnovation Residency , PG Raod Secunderabad - 500003

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Tax Recovery Officer, Range-16, Room No.315,3'd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basher bagh,Hyderabad-500004.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ direction or order especially in the nature of the writ of Certiorari quashing the notice dated 24-3-2008 purportedly issped under Rule 73 of Schedule ll of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, by the Respondeht,to the Petitioner as being without authority of law and unlawful

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 8951 OF 2008)

¶16

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 restrain the Respondent from initiating any steps against the Petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 24-3-2008. purportedly issued under Rule 73 of Schedule ll of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 by the Respondents to the Petitioner

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. SAHITI REP SRl. CH. PUSHYAM KIRAN

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. SUDHAKAR REODY

¶19

(Sr SC FoR lNcoME TAx)

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

Page 1 of 2

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶23

AND

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

¶25

Writ Petition No.6848 of 2OO8

¶26

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSI{Y)

¶27

The instant writ petition has been filed by tl-rc petrtioner Lrnder Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying thr: Court to issue a rryrit, direction or order especially in the nature of a Writ of Certiorai by quashing the notice dated 24.03.2008 purportedly ssued under Rule 73 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the respondent to the petitioner as being without authority of law.

¶28

Heard Ms.Sahiti, learned counsel representing; Mr.Ch. Pushyam Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. X.. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Income 1'a-x, Department, for the respondent

¶29

¶30

The instalt r,,,rit petition is one which was filecl in the year 2O0B and an interim order rvas also granted to the petitioler on 28.03.2008 insofar as the respondent being restrained fr.c m arresting the petitioner till 04.04.2008.

¶31

4 However, the interim order seems to have got c:ontinued till now

¶32

i I

¶33

Page Z of 2

¶34

The petitioner herein happened to be one of the former Director' of a Company by name M/s.prudential Construction Company Ltd., and the said company has since gone into liquidation.

¶35

The summons under challenge in the instant writ petition was one which was issued post liquidation. The interim order has now been in force for a-lmost 17 years and the compa,y has also gone into liquidation. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending any further. we intend to dispose of the writ petition holding that, iet the restraint, so far as arresting the petitioner is concerned, be not enforced by the respondent-Department. However, the respondent is free to take appropriate legal recourse other than step of arresting the petitioner, in accordance with law, and take it to its logical conclusion.

¶36

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petitiori gtands disposed of. No costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed

¶38

SD/-M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASS STANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

S CTION OFFICER

1 . Tax Recovery Officer, Range-l6, Room No.3'1 5, 3'd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basher bagh,Hyderabad-500004. 2. One CC to SRl. CH. PUSHYAM KIRAN, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. K. SUDHAKAR REDDY ,(Sr SC FOR INCOME TAX) [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

BIV LS Ft-

HIGH COURT

DATE D: 1 810812025

.:...<br><br>',: <br>L:I i:
2 ir sEP 20ffi ll
.i,i
',',',
\'
\i. i l r,Hi:' o /./

¶47

ORDER

¶48

WP.No.6848 of 2008