Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sri Golla Haridasyadav, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
****
WRIT PETITION NO: 17650 of 2024
SRI GOLLA HARIDASYADAV,, S/O. GOLLA LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT- 63 YRS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.
15/117-A, VICTORIA PETA, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH, 518301.
... Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, . REP.BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIATE AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND
OTHERS
... Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 01.07.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No
_____________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Page 2 of 15 SRS,J
W.P.No.17650 of 2024
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 17650 of 2024
% 01.07.2025
Writ Petition No. 17650 of 2024
SRI GOLLA HARIDASYADAV,, S/O. GOLLA LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT- 63 YRS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.
15/117-A, VICTORIA PETA, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH, 518301.
... Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, . REP.BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIATE AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND
OTHERS
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka, learned counsel
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Rasheed, Assistant Government
Pleader for Transport;
Sri Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned
standing counsel and Smt. Sodum
Anvesha, learned counsel
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) (2004) 2 SCC 1
2) (2022) 5 SCC 710
3) (2022) 11 SCC 761
4) (2011) 14 SCC 739
5) (2007) 2 SCC 230
6) (2000) 7 SCC 521
7) (2003) 3 SCC 541
8) (2003) 5 SCC 413
9) (2003) 2 SCC 577
This Court made the following:
Page 3 of 15 SRS,J
W.P.No.17650 of 2024
APHC010347602024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 17650/2024
Between:
1. SRI GOLLA HARIDASYADAV,, S/O. GOLLA LAKSHMANA AGED
ABOUT- 63 YRS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 15/117-A, VICTORIA
PETA, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, 518301.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, . REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
REGISTERED OFFICE, GH ROAD, ADONI, 467 GHOSHA HOSPITAL
ROAD, ADONI KURNOOL DISTRICT.
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ADONI, KURNOOL
DISTRICT.
4. PEPAKAYALA SRINIVASULU, S/O. P. CH. VENKATA RAO, AGED 48
YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 28-1574-A, NEAR GOODS SHED, R.S. ROAD,
NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER
COURT'S ORDER DT. 20/12/2024 IN IA 3/2024.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased tomay be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
Page 4 of 15 SRS,J
W.P.No.17650 of 2024
2nd respondent in not allowing the petitioner to clear the outstanding loan
amount for vehicle loan Account No. 39127412549 and thereby issuing letter
dt.04.04.2024 and the notice dt.20.06.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent for
transfer of ownership of vehicle without considering the petitioners reply
dt.08.07.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14 and 300-A of the
constitution of India and to consequently direct the 2nd respondent to receive
the demand draft no 147983 dated 4-03-2024 towards clearance of
outstanding loan amount and to release the vehicle bearing No. AP-39 EA-
3699 by closing the loan Account No. 39127412549 and set aside the notice
issued by the respondent No.2 dated 20-06-2024 and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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
may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to forthwith release the vehicle
bearing No. AP 39 EA 3699 by receiving the Demand Draft No. 147983 dated
4-03-2024 drawn on Central Bank of India, Adoni Branch and further direct
the respondent No.3 not to effect the transfer of vehicle bearing No.AP-39
EA-3699 in the name of any third person pending disposal of the Writ Petition
and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
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
Pleased to Vacate the Interim order Dated 09-08-2024 in Writ Petition
Number 17650 of 2024 , with costs
IA NO: 3 OF 2024
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
pleased to implead the Proposed Respondent No.4 herein as Party
Respondent No.4 in W.P.No. 17650/2024 and pass
IA NO: 4 OF 2024
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
pleased to vacate the Interim Order, dt.9.8.2024 passed in l.A.No.1/2024 in
W.P.No.17650/2024 and pass
Page 5 of 15 SRS,J
W.P.No.17650 of 2024
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. GRANDHI PRIYANKA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY
2. SODUM ANVESHA
3. GP FOR TRANSPORT
The Court made the following:
::ORDER:
:
The above writ petition has been filed to declare the action of
respondent No.2 in not allowing the petitioner to clear the outstanding loan in
respect of vehicle loan account No.39127412549; the letter dated 04.04.2024
and notice dated 20.06.2024 issued by respondent No.3 for transfer of
ownership of the vehicle without considering the petitioner’s reply dated
08.07.2024, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Ms. Priyanka, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Rasheed,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport, for respondents 1 and 3;
Sri S. Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2
and Smt. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
3. Initially, the writ petition was filed against respondents 1 to 3.
Respondent No.4, the auction purchaser, filed I.A.No.3 of 2024 to implead him
as a party respondent to the writ petition. The I.A. was allowed on 20.12.2024,
and accordingly, the auction purchaser came on record as respondent No.4.
4. The averments of the writ affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner, after
obtaining a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from respondent No.2 bank, vide loan
account No. 39127412549 purchased a vehicle bearing No.AP 39 EA 3699
under ‘hypothecation’. The petitioner made certain payments, and due to
pandemic and drought conditions, the petitioner failed to pay the instalments
regularly, and hence, the loan account was declared as ‘NPA’ on 01.04.2023.
Page 6 of 15 SRS,J
W.P.No.17650 of 2024
The vehicle was taken possession of by the bank on 08.08.2023. A sale notice
dated 27.02.2024 was issued proposing to conduct an auction on 11.03.2024.
Respondent No.2 estimated the value of the vehicle at Rs.7,00,000/-.
Challenging the said notice, dated 27.02.2024, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.6223 of 2024. On the submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner that it was informed that the auction was not conducted on
11.03.2024, for want of bidders, the writ petition was closed, giving liberty to
the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, if a new cause of action arises.
b) The petitioner approached respondent No.2 with demand drafts,
dated 04.03.2024, for Rs.7,00,000/-. Respondent No.2, without accepting the
demand draft, is proceeding to conduct an auction. The petitioner made a
representation on 03.04.2024, and respondent No.2 sent a reply on
04.04.2024, intimating the petitioner that the auction was conducted on
11.03.2024. However, the said reply was not communicated to the petitioner
till notice, dated 30.06.2024 was issued by respondent No.3. Respondent
No.3 issued notice under Form 37, calling upon the petitioner to surrender the
certificate of registration. Aggrieved by the said action, the above writ petition
is filed.
5. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It was
contended, inter alia, that the loan was sanctioned on 07.02.2020, and since
the petitioner failed to pay the instalments regularly, the account was declared
as NPA on 01.04.2023. An auction notice was issued on 27.02.2024, the
auction was conducted on 11.03.2024 and knocked down for an amount of
Rs. 7,05,000/-. The total due amount is Rs.9,84,924/-. The vehicle bearing
No.AP 39 EA 3699 was involved in an accident in the year 2023 and was
given for repairs. An amount of Rs. 1,20,625/-, incurred to repair the vehicle,
has not been paid, and the vehicle is in the custody of the KIA showroom. The
officials of the bank informed the showroom about the auction, and the
showroom management expressed no objection to handing over the vehicle if
the bill is cleared.
Page 7 of 15 SRS,J
W.P.No.17650 of 2024
b) Regarding W.P.No.6223 of 2024, and the order passed therein, it
was contended that, on verification of the High Court website, it came to know
that W.P.No.6223 of 2024 was filed on 06.03.2024; listed before learned
Single Judge on 12.03.2024; and at the request of learned counsel for the
petitioner, it was listed before the Division bench, on 19.03.2024. On the
representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the auction
was not conducted on 11.03.2024, the said writ petition was closed, giving
liberty to the petitioner to avail an appropriate remedy. But, the e-auction was
conducted on 11.03.2024 and two bidders participated. Respondent No.4
became the highest bidder and paid the entire amount.
c) A reply was given to the petitioner on 04.04.2024, intimating
about the auction conducted on 11.03.2024 and creation of a third-party
interest. The appraiser of respondent No.2 approached respondent No.3 for
the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the auction
purchaser. However, due to the interim order granted on 09.08.2024, further
steps have not been taken. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. The auction purchaser filed a separate counter affidavit. It was pleaded
about the purchase of the vehicle through auction and the payment of the
entire amount.
7. An additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner, by annexing copies of
two demand drafts for Rs.70,000/- and Rs.9,80,000/- and contended that the
petitioner is ready and willing to pay the interest at 12% per annum in favour
of the auction purchaser.
8. The auction purchaser filed a reply affidavit expressing disinclination to
accept the petitioner’s proposal.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for
respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent No.4 reiterated the
Page 8 of 15 SRS,J
W.P.No.17650 of 2024
contentions as per the averments made in the writ affidavit, additional affidavit
and respective counter affidavits.
10. The writ petition was filed on 09.08.2024, in pursuance of form No.37
dated 20.06.2024 issued by respondent No.3, directing the petitioner to
surrender the certificate of registration of the subject vehicle.
11. As narrated supra, e-auction of the subject vehicle was conducted
on 11.03.2024, and respondent No.4 emerged as the successful bidder and
the entire amount was deposited on the same day.
12. As seen from the order dated 19.03.2024 in W.P.No.6223 of 2024, none
appeared for the respondents. It seems the learned counsel for the petitioner
brought to the notice of the Court about the non-conducting of the auction on
11.03.2024 for want of bidders, and the same was recorded. Liberty was given
to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy. Thereafter, by letter dated
04.04.2024, the petitioner was informed about the e-auction conducted on
11.03.2024 and payment of the entire amount by the successful bidder on
12.03.2024.
13. At the hearing on a previous occasion, learned counsel for the
petitioner, at one stage, contended that the learned counsel appearing for the
bank represented in W.P.No.6223 of 2024 and sought time to get that
information; however, could not produce any proof to that effect.
14. From the above facts, this Court presumes that the petitioner got
knowledge about the auction, if not on 11.03.2024, at a later date, through
Ex.P6 letter, dated 04.04.2024. The petitioner is made aware of the auction,
on a second occasion, by proceedings, dated 20.06.2024, of respondent No.3.
The petitioner filed the above writ petition on 09.08.2024.
15. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 committed any
illegality in conducting the auction, and hence, the auction is liable to be set
aside. In the absence of such a plea and supporting proof, this Court has no
Page 9 of 15 SRS,J
W.P.No.17650 of 2024
other option except to conclude that respondent No.2 conducted the e-auction
by adhering to the procedure. Respondent No.4 became the successful
bidder, and the entire amount was paid by respondent No.4 on 12.03.2024.
16. It is pertinent to mention here that the vehicle met with an accident and
has been in the KIA showroom for a considerable time (till date).
17. The petitioner’s grievance, as seen from the prayer, is that respondent
No.2 is not allowing the petitioner to clear the outstanding amount. In fact, it is
a factually incorrect statement, given the developments discussed supra. Of
course, the petitioner filed two demand drafts along with an additional affidavit
and also made averments in the affidavit that he will pay interest at 12%.
However, in the absence of any illegality in the e-auction conducted and
creation of a right in favour of a third party, the e-auction cannot be set aside.
18. Viewing the issue from another perspective, the vehicle was
hypothecated with the Bank. Section 2(n) of the SARFAESI Act, defines that
‘Hypothecation’ means a charge in or upon any movable property, existing or
future, created by a borrower in favour of a secured creditor without delivery of
possession of the movable property to such creditor, as a security for financial
assistance and includes floating charge and crystallisation of such charge into
fixed charge on movable property.
19. Chapter III, Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act deals with the
Enforcement of security interest. Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act was
substituted by Act 44 of 2016 w.e.f. 01.09.2016. It reads as follows:
13(8) Where the amount of dues of the secured creditor together with all
costs, charges and expenses incurred by him is tendered to the secured
creditor at any time before the date of publication of notice for public
auction or inviting quotations or tender from public or private treaty
for transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale of the secured assets,–
(emphasis is added)
Page 10 of 15 SRS,J
W.P.No.17650 of 2024
(i) the secured assets shall not be transferred by way of lease
assignment or sale by the secured creditor; and
(ii) in case, any step has been taken by the secured creditor for
transfer by way of lease or assignment or sale of the assets before
tendering of such amount under this sub-section, no further step shall be
taken by such secured creditor for transfer by way of lease or assignment
or sale of such secured assets.
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P)
Ltd. 1 , considered the scope of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act and
observed as under at para 110.3:
“110.3. In accordance with the unamended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI
Act, the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset was available
till the sale or transfer of such secured asset. In other words, the
borrower’s right of redemption did not stand terminated on the date of the
auction-sale of the secured asset itself and remained alive till the transfer
was completed in favour of the auction-purchaser, by registration of the
sale certificate and delivery of possession of the secured asset. However,
the amended provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act make it
clear that the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset
stands extinguished thereunder on the very date of publication of the
notice for public auction under Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules. In effect,
the right of redemption available to the borrower under the present
statutory regime is drastically curtailed and would be available only till the
date of publication of the notice under Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules and not
till the completion of the sale or transfer of the secured asset in favour of
the auction-purchaser. (emphasis is added)
21. In the case at hand, the auction was conducted according to a
hypothecation agreement, after declaring the loan account as NPA, and a
third-party interest has already been created. A mortgage is in respect of
immovable property, and hypothecation is in respect of movable property.
1
(2024) 2 SCC 1
Page 11 of 15 SRS,J
W.P.No.17650 of 2024
Since the provisions are analogous, this Court relied upon the judgment
referred to supra wherein the scope of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act
was considered. The case at hand, since the e-auction was completed, in the
absence of any irregularity or fraud, while exercising the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the considered opinion of this Court,
it cannot be interdicted.
22. In K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya & Sri Omkareswara Swamy
Temple2, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the scope of interference by the
Courts in the public auction and, while reversing the judgement of the Division
Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, observed as under:
14. Once the appellant was found to be the highest bidder in a public
auction in which 45 persons had participated and thereafter when the sale
was confirmed in his favour and even the sale deed was executed, unless
and until it was found that there was any material irregularity and/or
illegality in holding the public auction and/or auction-sale was vitiated by
any fraud or collusion, it is not open to set aside the auction or sale in
favour of the highest bidder on the basis of some representations made by
third parties, who did not even participate in the auction proceedings and
did not make any offer.
16. It is also required to be noted that the sale was confirmed in favour of
the appellant by the Commissioner, Endowments Department after
obtaining the report of the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, we are of
the opinion that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the
High Court ought not to have ordered re-auction of the land in question
after a period of 23 years of confirmation of the sale and execution of the
sale deed in favour of the auction-purchaser by observing that the value of
the property might have been much more, otherwise, the object and
purpose of holding the public auction and the sanctity of the public auction
will be frustrated. Unless there is concrete material and it is established2
(2022) 5 SCC 710
Page 12 of 15 SRS,J
W.P.No.17650 of 2024that there was any fraud and/or collusion or the land in question was sold
at a throwaway price, the sale pursuant to the public auction cannot be set
aside at the instance of strangers to the auction proceeding.
17. The sale pursuant to the public auction can be set aside in an
eventuality where it is found on the basis of material on record that the
property had been sold away at a throwaway price and/or on a wholly
inadequate consideration because of the fraud and/or collusion and/or
after any material irregularity and/or illegality is found in
conducting/holding the public auction. After the public auction is held and
the highest bid is received and the property is sold in a public auction in
favour of the highest bidder, such a sale cannot be set aside on the basis
of some offer made by third parties subsequently and that too when they
did not participate in the auction proceedings and made any offer and/or
the offer is made only for the sake of making it and without any serious
intent. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, though Shri Jagat
Kumar immediately after finalising the auction stated that he is ready and
willing to pay a higher price, however, subsequently, he backed out. If the
auction-sale pursuant to the public auction is set aside on the basis of
such frivolous and irresponsible representations made by such persons
then the sanctity of a public auction would be frustrated and the rights of a
genuine bidder would be adversely affected.
23. The other issue, incidentally, to be considered is whether the law prevails
over equity or equity prevails over the law. The answer to the question is no
longer res integra.
24. In National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Dunar Foods Ltd. (Resolution
Professional) [National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Dunar Foods Ltd.
(Resolution Professional)3, after referring to a catena of its other judgments,
it was held that where the law is clear, the consequence thereof must follow.
The High Court has no option but to implement the law.
3
(2022) 11 SCC 761
Page 13 of 15 SRS,J
W.P.No.17650 of 2024
25. In BSNL v. Mishri Lal4, it was observed that the law prevails over equity if
there is a conflict. It is further observed that equity can only supplement the
law and not supplant it.
26. In Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank5, the Hon’ble Apex
Court in paras 30 to 35 considered the earlier judgements, and held as under:
“30. Thus, in Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa [Madamanchi
Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 36 : AIR 1963 SC
1633] (vide para 12) this Court observed : (AIR p. 1637)“12. … what is administered in courts is justice according to law,
and considerations of fair play and equity, however important they
may be, must yield to clear and express provisions of the law.”
31. In Council for Indian School Certificate Examination v. Isha Mittal6 it
was observed:
“4. … Considerations of equity cannot prevail and do not permit a
High Court to pass an order contrary to the law.”
32. In P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala 7 it was observed
“13. Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied
and interpreted equitably but equity cannot override written or
settled law.”
33. In Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra 8 it was observed:
“73. It is now well settled that when there is a conflict between law
and equity, the former shall prevail.”
34. In Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal 9 it was observed:
4
(2011) 14 SCC 739
5
(2007) 2 SCC 2306
(2000) 7 SCC 521]
7
(2003) 3 SCC 541
8
(2003) 5 SCC 413
9
(2003) 2 SCC 577
Page 14 of 15 SRS,J
W.P.No.17650 of 2024
“35. In a case where the statutory provision is plain and
unambiguous, the court shall not interpret the same in a different
manner, only because of harsh consequences arising therefrom.”
35. In E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy10 it was observed :
Equitable considerations have no place where the statute contained
express provisions.”
27. Thus, from the conspectus of the above authorities, it is clear that the law
prevails over equity. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner will deposit the amount with 12%, on the ground of equity,
this Court is not persuaded by the said submission, given the authoritative
pronouncements referred to supra.
28. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does
not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
29. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date: 01.07.2025
IKN
10
(2003) 1 SCC 123
Page 15 of 15 SRS,J
W.P.No.17650 of 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 17650/2024
Date: 01.07.2025
IKN