Point of Law: when a statutory remedy is available, the Court may not normally entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is purely discretionary in nature.

JUDGMENT :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. This appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is filed challenging the order dated 28.04.2020 passed in W.P.No.11176 of 2019 by the learned single Judge, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for issue of Writ of Mandamus declaring Ad-interim orders issued by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Ms.No.21 Home (General.A) Department dated 28.01.2019 to the extent of attaching the properties belonging to the petitioner at Sl.No.4 and 5 of Annexure to the impugned G.O. as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, contrary to provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositories of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 and violative of principles of Natural Justice, besides being violative of Article 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and set aside the same, was dismissed holding that the petitioner is entitled to avail effective, efficacious alternative remedy available before the Special Court, which is competent to take evidence and deal with the objections.

2. The parties to the appeal will hereinafter be referred as arrayed before the learned single Judge for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion.

3. The claim of the petitioner is that item Nos.4 and 5 of G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 28.01.2019 was purchased by the petitioner under registered sale deeds bearing Nos.459 of 2014 and 460 of 2014 dated 20.01.2014 from the vendor company – Agri Gold. Since then the petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner after securing necessary statutory approvals has commenced the construction of residential apartment complexes called “HRT Sanjana” and “HRT Manasvi”. One flat in HRT Manasvi, in the second floor, was sold to third party on 23.07.2018. Later, when the petitioner attempted to sell another property viz., a flat in first floor of the HRT Manasvi, the Sub-Registrar did not permit the registration. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the property could not be registered as the State already issued G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 28.01.2019, attaching the immovable property under Section 3 of “the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositories of Financial Establishments Act, 1999” (for short “Act 17 of 1999”) attaching the immovable property of the vendor’s company, which sold the property to the petitioner under two registered sale deeds mentioned above. The said company is accused of many crimes throughout the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana more particularly, defrauding hundreds of small depositors. Since the petitioner purchased property on 20.01.2014 i.e. much prior to registration of FIR against the vendor of the petitioner, the property is not liable for attachment and as the property is already alienated, Section 3 of the Act No.17 of 1999 has no application and to invoke Section 8 of the Act No.17 of 1999, the respondents have to follow certain procedure, but without following procedure under Section 8 of the Act No.17 of 1999, ad interim attachment was effected against the property of the petitioner, which are item Nos.4 and 5 of G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 28.01.2019 and to declare the same as void, illegal, arbitrary and Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

4. The respondents did not file counter.

5. Upon hearing argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General representing State, learned single Judge passed the order under challenge.

6. Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly concentrated on two issues. First issue is that, since the property was already sold prior to registration of crime against the vendor of the petitioner, Section 3 of the Act No.17 of 1999 cannot be invoked, at the same time even to attach the property of the third parties believed to be the property of Agri Gold, the accused, certain procedure is prescribed which is required to be followed while passing order of attachment. But, no such procedure was followed. Therefore, interim attachment under Section 3 of th