Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 521
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
Avva Madhavi Latha Yella Madhavi Latha - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 15255 of 2020
Decided On : 07-09-2020
P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate
The CID officials are not vested with any power to issue notices calling upon the tenants in occupation of various properties to pay rent to the credit of the CID Account.
Headnote:
APPDFE ACT - ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY - SECTION 3, 4, 6(4), 7, 10 - WRIT PETITION - The court held that the impugned notice issued by the respondents directing the tenant to deposit the rents relating to the premises attached under Section 3 of the APPDFE Act, 1999 is illegal and without any authority under the Act or Rules framed thereunder.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the owner of a property, challenged the notice issued by the respondents directing her tenant to deposit the monthly rents into the bank account of the CID on the ground that the property was under ad interim attachment in Cr.No.3/2015. The petitioner contended that the attachment was not made absolute and the petitions filed by the CID Department before the Special Court were still pending. She also argued that the subject property was her absolute property and had nothing to do with the criminal case.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned notice issued by the respondents directing the tenant to deposit the rents relating to the premises attached under Section 3 of the APPDFE Act, 1999 is illegal and without any authority under the Act or Rules framed thereunder. The court observed that the control of the property was not given to the CID and it was still continuing under the control of the petitioner and she was entitled to collect rents from the tenants in occupation.
Issues: Whether the respondents had the power to issue the impugned notice directing the tenant to deposit the rents relating to the premises attached under Section 3 of the APPDFE Act, 1999.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the APPDFE Act, 1999 and the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.11795 of 2020 & batch, wherein it was held that the CID officials were not vested with any power to issue notices calling upon the tenants in occupation of various properties to pay rent to the credit of the CID Account.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned notice issued by the respondents directing the tenant to deposit the rents relating to the premises attached under Section 3 of the APPDFE Act, 1999.
JUDGMENT
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. - The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 & 3 in issuing notice dated 29.06.2020 to the 4th respondent, who is the tenant of the petitioner, directing it to deposit the monthly rents of the premises bearing D.No.54-15-14, 3rd Floor, Sai Prabha complex, Bharathi Nagar, Vijayawada on the ground that the said property is under ad interim attachment of Government of A.P./under order of absolute attachment of Special Court-cum-District Court, Eluru in Cr.No.3/2015 of Pedapadu Police Station, West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to set aside the said notice.
2. The petitioner's case briefly is thus:
(a) The petitioner is the absolute owner of the petition mentioned property, which she purchased with her own funds which is under occupation of the tenant.
(b) The petitioner is the wife of the Director of M/s.Agri Gold Farms Estates India Private Limited. Police officials raided Agrigold group of companies and the house of Director on 04.01.2015 and the CID Department registered FIRs under Section 420, 406, 120-B IPC and Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, "APPDFE Act, 1999" ). The CID officers attached all the properties of Agrigold company and also attached the personal properties of the petitioner through G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 01.08.2018, G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 28.01.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.133 dated 17.10.2019 of Home (ARMS & SPF) Department under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act. Thereafter the CID Department filed Crl.M.P.Nos.872/2018, 1128/2019 & 193/2019 in Cr.No.3/2015 before the Special Court-cum-Principal District & Sessions Judge, Eluru seeking confirmation of the attachment of the properties covered under the aforesaid G.Os. The attachment in respect of the properties of the petitioner mentioned in those G.Os is not yet confirmed and the petitions are still pending.
(c) While so, the respondents 2 & 3 issued notice dated 29.06.2020 to the 4th respondent, who is the tenant of petitioner, of Sai Prabha complex, Bharathi Nagar, Vijayawada directing it to pay the monthly rents into the bank account of the CID on the ground that the said property is under ad interim attachment in Cr.No.3/2015. The respondents did not issue any notice to the petitioner though she is the affected person by virtue of the said notice.
(d) The attachment was not made absolute till date and the petitions filed by the CID Department before the Special Court are still pending. Hence, the respondents 2 & 3 have no power or authority or jurisdiction to give notices to the tenants of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned notice is bad at law. Further, the subject property is the personal property of the petitioner and the same has nothing to do with Cr.No.3/2015. She has purchased the said property with her own funds and therefore, the very ad interim attachment itself is per se amounts to violation of law. The petitioner is contesting before the Special Court and hence, at this stage the notice is quite untenable and unjustifiable.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Home took notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. No counter is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar and learned Government Pleader for Home representing the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
5. The main plank of the argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that she purchased the subject property with her own funds and at present the same is under the occupation of 4th respondent. It is the further contention of the petitioner that though the petitioner happens to be the wife of Avva Hema Sundara Vara Prasad, the Director of Agrigold Farm Estates India Private Limited against whom and its group of companies Cr.No.3/2015 is registered and under investigation, still the petitioner has nothing to do with the said case
