ORDER (ORAL)

Dt. 20.04.2023 (Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

The grievance raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is to the effect that respondents 1 to 3 have not framed proper guidelines or rules to safeguard the interest of sureties under the Chit Funds Act, 1982 and A.P. Chit Fund Rules, 2008 and, consequently, to direct the said respondents to frame rules in this regard so that sureties are provided opportunity to contest the award and the execution proceedings.

2. The 5th respondent has borrowed money from the 4th respondent. Against the 5th respondent, a decree for recovery of money has been passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narasaraopet, Guntur District and E.P.No.53 of 2018 in Dispute No.213 of 2014 is pending for execution of award.

3. It is settled law that writ court cannot issue mandamus directing the competent Legislature or the Reserve Bank of India to frame a particular rule or regulation. Merely because it is open for the lender of money to proceed against the borrower and the surety for recovery of money, it cannot be said that interest of the surety is not safeguarded.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Satp