Important Point—Once an order of attachment is made, same will continue till an appropriate order is passed by Special Court.

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. M/s Sai Vuma Chit Fund Company and its Group of companies suffered an ad-interim order of attachment of their properties under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Institutions Act, 1999 (for short the Act), vide G.O.M s.No.205, Home (General-B) Department, dated 07.8.2010.

2. Before the said ad-interim order of attachment was made absolute, respondent No.3 has filed Writ Petition No.18653 of 2011 questioning the said G.O. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, final attachment of the properties was made by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, vide his order, dated 07.5.2012, in Crl.M.P.No.1185 of 2010. Obviously, the said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court when at the instance of respondent No.3 on the one side and respondent No.2 on the other side, the said Writ Petition was referred to Lok Adalat in the year 2015. By award, dated 07.12.2015, in Writ Petition No.18653 of 2011, the Lok Adalat recorded the purported compromise, dated 04.6.2015, between respondent Nos.2 and 3 and closed the said Writ Petition. The terms of the said compromise placed on record by the Lok Adalat read as under:-

(a) The competent authority (under APPDFE Act, 1999)-cum-the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City has agreed for Indian Overseas Bank to sell the mortgaged properties by conducting auction/tenders as per provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002/as per law, by fixing upset price of the properties mutually agreed upon by the bank and the Competent authority (under APPDFE Act, 1999)-cum-Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City. The property shall not be sold below the upset price fixed without the consent of both IOB and the competent authority (under APPDFE Act, 1999)-cum-Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City.

(b) The Competent Authority (Under APPDFE Act, 1999)-cum-Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City has agreed for the proposal made by the Indian Overseas Bank to the effect that after selling the properties the dues of Indian Overseas Bank will be recovered first and the remaining sale consideration will be kept separate deposits in the Special Court under APPDFE Act, 1999-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court, Vijayawada.

(c) Indian Overseas Bank and the competent authority (under APPDFE Act, 1999)-cum-Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City have agreed to file a compromise petition before the disposed of by the High Court, Hyderabad based on the compromise arrived between the Indian Overseas Bank and the competent authority (under APPDFE Act, 1999)-cum-Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City.

3. The petitioner is a welfare association of M/s Sai Vuma Chit Fund Company and its group of companies, whose members claim to have invested their hard-earned monies in the said group of companies. It has filed the present Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by the Lok Adalat award, dated 07.12.2015, in Writ Petition No.18653 of 2011, on multiple grounds.

4. The learned Government Pleader for Home (Andhra Pradesh) has entered appearance for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 have entered appearance through Mr. T.Lakshmi Narayana and Mr. Jukanti Anil Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel, has entered appearance for respondent No.7, who was subsequently added.

5. As regards respondent No.3, a perusal of the proceeding sheet shows that on 17.3.2017, Mr. K.Surya Narayana Rao, an advocate, represented to the Court that he is appearing for the said respondent and requested for time for filing counter-affidavit. Though he has not entered appearance, his name is being shown as representing respondent No.3 in the cause list.

6. When the Writ Petition came up before us on 30.6.2017, we adjourned the case, as the learned counsel for respondent No.3 was not present, with the observation that on the next date of hearing, the case will not be adjourned further. Even today, Mr. K.Surya Narayana Rao, learned counsel, is not present in the Court during the hear