ORAL JUDGMENT:---With consent of the Counsel appearing for the litigating parties and as a very short point arises for adjudication, we are disposing this writ petition at this stage finally.

2. Rule, returnable forthwith with the consent of both the parties.

3. RRC is under execution and that RRC is engulfing the personal property of the petitioner who happens to be one of the directors of M/s. Arihant Agro Products Limited. On 1-12-2000 a notice was given by District Collector/Tehsildar, Government Dues Recovery, District Mumbai to M/s. Arihant Agro Products Ltd., informing them the claim made by Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, C.S. No. and District Collector No. as per the books of the District Collector the land belonging to Mr. Saumil D. Mehta was to be attached and the revenue due and payable and till date has not been so paid for the years 1988-89 to 1992-93 which is to the tune of a sum of Rs. 22,30,316.00 paise and a notice fee of Rs. 2.00 paise aggregating to Rs. 22,30,318.00 paise ought to be paid by said M/s. Arihant Agro Products Ltd., and petitioner Saumil D. Mehta. The office of the District Collector/Tahsildar, Government Dues Recovery, informed by the said notice that Saumil D. Mehta was called on to pay the said amount within 20 days of the receipt of the said notice and in case of failure to pay the same and/or deposit in the office of the Collector, the same would be recovered by attaching the properties of whatsoever nature and wheresoever situated by selling the same and the proceeds thereof would be deposited as realised therefrom in the Collector's office. Consequently, a notice was issued in view of provisions of section 267 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and a demand of Rs. 66,07,453/- was made and that gave rise to this petition.

4. Mr. Vasudeo, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had resigned from the post of Director of M/s. Arihant Agro Products Ltd., prior to 3-1-1995 and that was made clear by his letter which was addressed to the Chairman of Arihant Agro Products Ltd., Hyderabad dated 3-1-1995. He pointed out to the said Chairman from the previous directors report which was published and printed in the balance sheet of the said company that it was mentioned that the petitioner Saumil D. Mehta had resigned from the post of director which he held in the said company. He brought it to the notice of the Chairman that when he was invited to attend 8th Annual General Meeting of the said company which was to be held on 1-12-1994, he had resigned prior to said letter and his resignation was accepted by the company also and a note to that effect was published and printed in the balance sheet of the said company. Therefore, Shri Vasudeo submitted that as the present petitioner had already resigned from the post of director of the said company, the recovering authority was not entitled to attach his personal-private property which had no concern whatsoever with the assets and liabilities of said M/s. Arihant Agro Products Ltd. whatsoever. He submitted that without giving him the opportunity of being heard, his private and personal property happens to be attached by the recovery authority which has been entrusted with the work of making the said recovery for Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Department. He submitted that the said process be quashed because it infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

5. Mr. Udaipuri, Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the resignation has not been tendered by the petitioner by filling in Form 32 and it has not been so tendered in view of provisions of section 303 sub-section (2) of the Companies Act. He further submitted that as no legal steps have been taken and the resignation has not been tendered legally, the petitioner cannot seek the protection of this Court as he is seeking by making the prayer which has been indicated by the prayer Clause of this petition. In the course of submissions Mr. U

Click Here to Read the rest of this document