Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 29561 (AP)

Yeturu Bakthavatsla Reddy, v. The Andhra Bank,

WP/20384/2019 · 2025-01-21

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

::1:: APHC010423272019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 20384/2019 Between: Yeturu Bakthavatsla Reddy, ...PETITIONER AND The Andhra Bank ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T BALAJI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. V RAGHU ::2:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 20384 of 2019 This Court made the following ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent in not receiving the amount mentioned in the impugned letter No.0333/OTS dated 11.11.2019 issued by the Respondent by receiving a sum of Rs.24,720/- towards agriculture gold loan account No. GL.AGL/01/2006/1581 as per Circular No.1/2008 issued by the Government of India under agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and release the gold ornaments to the Petitioner forthwith and consequently direct the respondent to receive the above said amount of Rs.24,720/- under OTS and release the gold ornaments to the petitioner and pass……..” 2. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Respondent issued notice dated 11.11.2019 informing the Petitioner that his loan account was selected on OTS scheme for temporary period and if the Petitioner paid an amount of Rs.24,720/-, his entire loan due as on 31.10.2019 of Rs.4,55,482/- can be revived and cleared. After receipt of the subject notice, the Petitioner approached the Respondent bank for payment of an ::3:: amount of Rs.24,720/- as informed by the Respondent bank on 11.11.2019. But to the surprise of the Petitioner, the Respondent Bank not received the amount and stated that the said notice is not meant for the Petitioner’s account and it relates to 3rd party. It is only a mistake of fact. Respondent Bank further informed that the Bank is not entitled to receive the amount from the Petitioner. Hence the Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits having issued notice dated 11.11.2019, now the Respondent Bank cannot go back and to allow to state that the notice was not meant for the Writ Petitioner and it is for the others. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Bank clear and categorically submits that the issuance of the notice to the Petitioner by the Respondent Bank is a mistake of fact and that notice should be issued to another account holder but not to the Petitioner. Admittedly, the Petitioner is having Agricultural Gold Loan Account bearing No.GL.AGL/01/2006/1581 for an amount of Rs.55,000/-. But here the loan accounts are different and this amount is Rs.81,000/-. Therefore, such a mistake was rectified by issuing another notice dated 21.12.2019 to the Petitioner and the earlier notice issued on 11.11.2019 was withdrawn. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner cannot be considered. Certainly, the notice dated 11.11.2019 is not at all relevant to ::4:: the Petitioner and the Petitioner cannot take advantage out of mistake of fact by the Respondent Bank. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Bank, the notice dated 11.11.2019 issued by the Respondent Bank is not at all relevant to the Petitioner’s account mentioned therein as they are not tallying with Agricultural Gold Loan Account of the Petitioner which was mentioned by the Petitioner in his own affidavit and other notices issued by the Respondent Bank. Therefore, the Writ Petition cannot be adjudicated since the claim of the Petitioner is not at all relating to the Petitioner herein. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dt: 21.01.2025 krk ::5:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 74 WRIT PETITION NO: 20384/2019 21.01.2025 krk