Before the Government could recover the sums due under Section 52 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, the appellant should be furnished with the relevant material on which the amount is said to be due, and give an opportunity to the appellant to make his representations and produce the relevant material to substantiate his representations and thereafter determine the liability. Only on such determination of the liability and the amount due thereunder, the Government can take proceedings under Section 52 of the Act for recovering the amount.

RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.:- This appeal is against the judgment of our learned brother Obul Reddi, J. dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein for the issue of a Writ of mandamus restraining the respondents viz. The State of Andhra Pradesh, the Collector of Hyderabad District and the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Urban, Hyderabad, to forbear from taking proceedings under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act

against the appellant (petitioner) in pursuance of Form No. II notice dated 6-5-1967 issued by the 3rd respondent.

2. The appellant herein obtained a loan of Rs. 20,000/- by mortgaging certain immoveable properties in December, 1953 from the Industrial Trust Fund (hereinafter called the Fund) which was constituted under the Hyderabad Industrial Trust Fund Rules, 1347 Hizri. He obtained another loan of Rs. 30,000/- in August, 1953 from the same fund by hypothecating certain moveable property. In December, 1955 he obtained a further loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the fund hypothecating the Gaysers and Gayseretts manufactured by the appellant's concern and other moveable properties which were in the custody of the State Bank of Hyderabad and which were agreed to be handed over to the custody of the said Board. The appellant states that these articles were handed over to the Board on 24-1-1956. The monies borrowed under the agreement should be repaid with interest at 5% per annum compoundable at half-yearly intervals. Under the agreement it is provided that the board can after giving 30 days' notice, seize and sell the moveable properties if the loan is not paid on demand.

3. In the year 1965 the Government took proceedings under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act to recover the dues from the appellant. The appellant then approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and filed Writ Petn. No. 934 of 1965 (AP), contending that no proceedings under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act could be taken for the recovery of the amount. The main contention of the appellant then was that the loans were granted to him under the Industrial Trust Fund Rules and that the said rules did not provide for invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The Writ Petition was disposed of by Gopala Krishnan Nair, J., on 7-7-1965 (AP), holding that the action of the Government was authorised and valid under the provisions of Section 52 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act.

4. The appellant now states that subsequent to the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, he had made payment to a tune of Rs. 40,000/- to the Government and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 10-3-1966, that at the time of the payment of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 5000/-the appellant specifically made it a condition precedent for the encashment of the cheque, that the Gayseretts which were hypothecated by the appellant to the Government and which were in possession of the Government should be returned to the appellant. Thereafter the attachment proceedings were withdrawn by the Government. The appellant submits that he made repeated requests to the respondents to release the hypothecated goods worth according to him, more than Rs. 50,000/- in order to facilitate him to make the payment of the amounts due to the Government. He submits that so far, the respondents have not taken any steps to return the goods hypothecated and handed over to the Government, or to determine the actual amount due towards the principal and interest under the aforesaid loans. However the third respondent came to the concern of the appellant on 6-5-1967 and attached certain moveable properties belonging to the appellant and took an undertaking from him under duress that he would hand over these articles to the Government whenever required.

The appellant has thereupon filed this Writ Petition challenging the action of the respondents. The appellant states that apart from Rs. 45,000/- already paid, he had paid in instalments some more amounts aggregating to Rs. 6517-15-1 on various dates either by cas