Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.

State Financial Corporation is in appeal aggrieved by the order passed in WP No.12409 of 2010, dated 27-03-2012. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent herein questioning the impugned notice dated 16-02-2010 issued by the appellant-Corporation demanding to pay a sum of Rs.36,157/- towards interest and Rs.3,550/- towards other expenses, totalling to Rs.40,242/- and notice dated 20-03-2010 demanding to pay a sum of Rs.8,95,667/- towards interest and Rs.3,559/- towards other expenses totaling to Rs.8,99,226/- in default to pay the amounts, sought to recover the same by invoking the provisions of the AP Revenue Recovery Act, 1891 (for short, ‘the ROR Act’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. It is evident from the record that the respondent-writ petitioner along with one Mr. G. Sridhar Reddy availed loan facility of Rs.3,92,000/- from the appellant-Corporation for starting a unit by name “UNISIL Products” in the year 1990. Further loan of Rs.1,11,000/- was sanctioned to the said unit but the said unit has not availed the said loan after completion of legal formalities in terms of the sanctioned letter. The unit of the respondent appears to have been closed down after 1992 and the last transaction between the respondent and the appellant-Corporation was in the year 1995. Appellant-Corporation invoked Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short, ‘the Act’) SFC Act and sold the land and building as well as plant and machinery of the unit for Rs.8,20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. The appellant therefore demanded balance amount of Rs.36,157/- towards interest and Rs.2,559/- towards other expenses, in all Rs.40,242/- under notice dated 16-02-2010 and a further sum of Rs.8,95,667/- under notice dated 20-03-2010 towards interest on the principal amount and other expenses.

4. On 27-01-2009, Government issued GO Ms.No.80, dated 27-1-2009 under Section 5 of the ROR Act authorizing the Branch Managers of the State Financial Corporations to exercise powers of District Collector under Section 52-A & 52-B of the ROR Act. The Corporation, therefore, issued the impugned notices dated 16-2-2010 and 20-3-2010 seeking to take action under the ROR Act for recovery of the amounts mentioned therein. Respondent-writ petitioner challenges the said notices on the ground that recoveries are barred by Limitation and places reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in STAE OF KERALA vs. VR KALLIYANKIKUTTY (AIR 1999 SC 1305)as well as the decision of this Court in NA RADHA vs. STATE OF AP(2000 (2) ALD 560).

5. Learned single Judge on consideration of the material on record and following the decisions (1 and 2 Supra) held that the appellant-Corporation cannot recover the debt which is time barred by resorting to provisions of the ROR Act and allowed the writ petition, which is questioned in this writ appeal.

6. Shri Y.N. Lohita, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation contends that for the first time the Government in GO Ms.No.80, dated 27-1-2009 conferred power on all the Branch Managers of the Corporation to exercise powers of Collector under Sections 52A and 52-B of the ROR Act for recovery of dues to the Corporation in the manner specified in the said ROR Act. Learned counsel further submits that based on the said GO, the Corporation had issued Office Order No.Legal/29, dated 12-6-2009 and in pursuance thereof, the impugned notices were issued. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in JAGDISH RAI vs. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION (AIR 2008 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 50)for the proposition that the proceedings under Section 32-G of the SFC Act, provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable as there is no express provision in the SFC Act making the Limitation Act applicable. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the decision of the S