( 1 ) THE petitioners, partners of the erstwhile m/s. Vikram Industries, Kakinada, in these proceedings sought a declaration that sec. 52-A of A. P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short the Act ) is unconstitutional and that the action of the A. P. State Finance corporation (R-2) seeking to enforce its dues by the notices dt. 5-10-88 and 15-11-88, against the petitioners under the provisions of the Act, is illegal.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief: (A) M/s. Vikram Industries, Kakinada, a partnership firm was sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 67,000/- in 1971, to meet part of the cost of the land, buildings, plant and machinery and for setting up a unit for manufacture of melamine products. The petitioners are stated to have run the unit for a time but without any payment i. e. , towards instalments or interest. (B) Two individuals Jagarlamudi Durga prasad and Marine Sambasivaram (impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition, but against whom the writ petition was dismissed, for default, by this court s order dt. 22-6-99) are stated by the petitioners to have been admitted into the partnership along with the petitioners on 1-1-1981 under a registered partnership deed and that the partnership itself was dissolved on 25-2-1981. The petitioners have also urged that as per the deed of dissolution all the assets and liabilities of the said firm were taken over by the newly introduced partners J. Durga Prasad and m. Sambasivaram, and that from the said date of dissolution the petitioners ceased to have any interest in the assets or liabilities of the firm. The petitioners also pleaded that Durga Prasad and Sambasivaram had re-established the business in the name and style of M/s. Coastal Plastics, Kakinada, and also undertook to discharge all the liabilities mentioned in the balance sheet attached to the dissolution deed, within one year including the loans due to the respondent-Corporation and the State Bank of India. It is also pleaded that the factum of dissolution and taking over of the assets and liabilities by Durga Prasad and sambasivaram was intimated to the respondent-Corporation and that from then onwards the Corporation was dealing with the said individuals and that M/s. Costal plastics never claimed anything from the petitioners. The A. P. S. F. C. however denied the above averments in its counter-affidavit stating that the proposal of Durga Prasad and Sambasivaram taking over the assets and liabilities of the Unit was accepted on certain conditions by the Corporation and that the conditions not having been complied with approval was not accorded. The Corporation also denied the knowledge of admission of Durga Prasad and sambasivaram as partners of M/s. Vikram industries and the Corporation contended that the admission of the said individuals into the partnership without the prior consent of the Corporation is violative of the terms and conditions of the loan document executed and that in the circumstances the petitioners as partners of the firm are jointly and severally liable to the Corporation for the debts due. In view of these contentious facts sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the question of the petitioners not being liable in the circumstances above is not susceptible to adjudication by this Court, under Art. 226. (C) The respondent-Corporation addressed a letter dt. 5-10-88 to the petitioners informing that an amount of rs. 2,46,218. 70 is due towards the loan sanctioned to M/s. Vikram Industries, kakinada, and that the unit has been included in the Revenue Recovery Act. The letter informed that before proceeding under the Act the Corporation would like to settle the issue amicably and in the circumstances that the petitioner is called upon to pay the amount by 20-10-88 and in default the Special Deputy Tahsildar will attach the properties to realise the amounts. (D) To the above letter petitioners 1 and 3 responded by letter dt. 18-10-88 stating