THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO.17151 OF 2006

ORDER:

Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner received the Sanctioned House Building Advance loan amount of Rs.1,18,000/- in two equal installments of Rs.59,000/- each. Out of 2 installments, the petitioner received the 1^st installment loan amount of Rs.59,000/-. Subsequently, the Gram Panchayath of the petitioner revoked the building permission and with that observation, the 2^nd respondent has advised the petitioner to pay back the availed 1^st installment loan amount of Rs.59,000/-.

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not satisfied the advice of the 2^nd respondent, ultimately, the 2^nd respondent taken action against the petitioner as per Circular No.PD-41/95, dated 12.06.1995, diverting of Special House Building Advance loans for other purposes will come under mis-use of Special Building Advance which attracts imposition of penal interest as applicable from time to time besides initiation of disciplinary action by the unit officer concerned.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner took the loan amount of Rs.59,000/- and the respondents recovered total amount of Rs.1,24,030/- from Oct 1997 to June 2006 from the sureties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the present case is of 2006 and now the petitioner is aged about more than 70 years and initially, this Court had granted interim stay until further orders.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that initially Rs.1,23,068/- was received and out of Rs.1,23,068/-, the additional amount recovered from sureties i.e. 18,382/- was deducted and finally the 2^nd respondent received an amount of Rs.1,04,686/-, which is higher than the 1^st sanctioned amount.

7. In view of the above submissions of both the parties, this court is of the opinion that whatever the 1^st amount sanctioned to the petitioner, the respondents recovered more than the sanctioned amount from the petitioner, with this observation and in view of the interim stay granted by this Court in the year 2006, no further orders are required in this writ petition.

8. With the above observations, this writ petition is closed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 19.08.2025 TU