APHC010008702009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 484 OF 2009 H Letters Patent against the order dated 11-10-2007 in WP. No. 3675/2001 on the file of the High Court. Between: The Kakinada Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...Appellant/(4*^ Respondent) AND 1. B. Bangaru Raju, S/o. Subba Raju, Aged 70 Years, R/o. Industrial Estate G.3 and G.4, Samalkot, East Godavari District. ...Respondent(Writ Petitioner) 2. The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 3. The Commissioner of Industries, Government Hyderabad. 4. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, East Godavari District, Kakinada. of Andhra Pradesh, ...Respondents(Respondent No.1 to 3) lA NO: 1 OF 2009(WAMP 990 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 11-10-2007 in W.P.No. 3675/2001, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS BASAVA Counsel for Respondent No.1 : M/s. BS KARTIK & PRASAD ESR LAW FIRMS (Not present) Counsel for Respondent No.2 : GP FOR REVENUE (Not present) Counsel for Respondent No.3 : GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE (Not present) Counsel for Respondent No.4 : SRI A. RAMAKRISHNA (Not present) The Court made the following : .WA-^o.484/2009 1 APHC010008702009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 484/2009 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11-10-2007 in Wp No. 3675/2001 Between: 1.THE KAKINADA COOP CENTRAL BANK LTD. GENERAL MANAGER, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT REP. BY ITS AND 1.B BANGARU RAJU, S/0. SUBBA RAJU, R/0. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE G.3 AND G.4, SAMAKOT, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT 2.THE KAKINADA. 3.THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 4.THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRAICT, KAKINADA. ...RESPONDENT(S): lA NO: 1 OF 2008fWAMP 3435 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 104 days in filing the above Writ Appeal against the order, dated 11-10-2007 in WP No. 3675/2001 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. .WA-^Nb.484/2009 2 lA NO: 1 OF 2009(WAMP 990 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tos uspend the operation of the order dated 11-10-2007 in WPNo. 3675/2001, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: 1.SRINIVAS BASAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BS K.ARTIK & PRASAD ESR 2.BSKARTIK PRASAD ESR 3.A RAMAKRISHNA CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 17.06.2025 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Assailing the order dated 11.10.2007 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.3675 of 2001, whereby and whereunder respondent no.4 was directed to pay to the petitioner Rs.89,010/- with interest, this Writ Appeal has been preferred by respondent no.4 in the writ petition. 2. For convenience, the parties, hereinafter will be referred to as per their status in the writ petition. •Ka .WA.9^o.484/2009 petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction to respondent release the amount pending with the bank together with 3. The no.4-Bank to interest. 4. The contents of the writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner started a Small Scale Industry in the year 1968 under the name and style M/s. Venkateswara Containers Limited dealing in fabrication and welding works. Non-conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra That the Pradesh (for short, 'NEDCAPO recognized it as one of the units to ground Bio gas plants on Turn Key basis and accordingly the firm had commissioned many Bio gas plants financed by several banks. That during the year 1986-87, entrusted to the unit of the petitioner, for which nearly 40 bio gas plants were the respondent no.4-Bank through their Tuni Branch agreed to finance and accordingly the NEDCAP had released their share of subsidy by sending the cheques through the said bank. That the petitioner had completed installation of bio gas plants, for which the respondent no.4-bank had to pay an amount of Rs.89,000/-. That though the petitioner made several requests and despite fact that all the officers connected with the project as well as District Collector recommended for payment of the amount, the respondent no.4 bank the did not pay the amount. .WJl.!Nb.484/2009 4 5. None of the respondents filed counter-affidavit. 6. The learned single Judge upon considering the material available on record and upon appreciation of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, allowed the writ petition with costs, directing respondent no.4 to pay Rs.89,010/- to the petitioner with interest at 6% from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit. 7. Assailing the same, the respondent no.4/bank in the writ petition preferred this intra court appeal under clause 15 of Letters Patent. 8. Heard Sr/ Srinivasa Basava, learned counsel for appellant. None represented the respondents in the appeal. 9. Sri Srinivasa Basava, learned counsel for appellant, in elaboration to the grounds of appeal would contend that the writ petition, having been filed for mere recovery of money, is not maintainable. He would further contend that as the original beneficiaries are not interested to get bio gas plants, another set of beneficiaries were identified and unless the persons who got constructed bio gas plants became members of the society, the question of release of loan amount does not arise. He would further contend that the writ .WA.^o.484/2009 5 petitioner suppressed the report submitted to the bank that all the units were not grounded and also the factum of appointment of enquiry officer to whom the petitioner stated that he could not complete installation of plants due to economic troubles. He would further contend that the writ petition having been filed for recovery of the amount nearly ten (10) years after it became due the claim is barred by time and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, however, the learned single Judge, having failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective, and without considering that the claim is hopelessly barred by limitation, allowed the writ petition. The order impugned in the writ appeal is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside and consequently the writ petition be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ appeal. 10. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant/respondent no.4. 11. The contents of the writ petition would indicate that installation of bio gas plants was prior to the year 1989 and the Projector Director and District Manager, NEDCAP vide their letters dated 17.07.1989 and 10.05.1989 requested the respondent bank to pay the amounts to the petitioner. Further, the General Manager, District Industries Centre vide communication dated .WJl.9io.484/2009 6 03.12.1990 had requested the respondent bank to pay the amount as per the report of Task Force. The petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 2001 i.e. to say nearly twelve (12) years after the alleged completion of the project. 12. Generally, the petitioner ought to have filed a suit for recovery of the amount due and payable by bank, for which limitation would be three (03) years from the date on which the same became due. It is settled that while the Limitation Act bars the remedy of filing a suit, it does not extinguish the debt itself. Creditors can still seek recovery through other statutory means, provided the object of those statutes creates an additional right in favour of the creditors. The statute of limitation only bars a remedy, while the right to recover the loan through any other suitable manner provided remains untouched. This principle is crucial for financial institutions and creditors, ensuring that their rights to recover debts remain intact despite the passage of time. 14. Admittedly, the writ petition is filed for mere recovery of the amount from the bank stated to be the loan amount for construction of bio gas plants, which has been filed nearly twelve (12) years after completion of the project. The petitioner did not specify any statute that creates an w '.WA.S^o.484/2009 additional right in his favour for recovery of the amount despite being barred by time under Limitation Act. Therefore, the writ petition deserves dismissal. 15. The learned single Judge did not take into consideration the belatedness in filing the writ petition though specifically Government Pleader and allowed the warrants interference and the same has to be set aside delay and laches, since the writ petition was filed with beyond period of limitation provided for recovery of amount due. argued by learned writ petition. The order impugned on the ground of an inordinate delay 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. T The District Collector, East Godavari ^. The Commissioner of Industries Vijayawada. ^ KaL^ad^^^' Manager, District Industries t nn» rr !° Advocate (OPUCJ a; on:I:: s"^A.^IaSs*nn^a"S ■ pT:desh'(OU?r Andhra 8. Two CCS to GP for Revenue 9. Two CD Copies District at Kakinada. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Centre, East Godavari District High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT) Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:17/06/2025 \ JUDGMENT WA NO. 484 OF 2009 ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS