JUDGMENT
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. The petitioner is a firm. It seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Official Liquidator, High Court of A.P. (under Companies Act) in forfeiting the earnest money deposit (EMD) of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid by it while participating in the tender for selling the properties of M/s. A.P. Steels Ltd. (in liquidation) as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposing of the writ petition in limini may be noticed. A.P. Steels Ltd., was ordered to be wound up and the first respondent herein namely, Official Liquidator (OL), High Court of A.P., was appointed as liquidator of the company in liquidation. The OL issued a notice inviting offers in sealed covers for sale of property. Plot No. 1 comprises of land and buildings with certain specified machinery. The upset price was fixed at Rs. 2,92,42,500/-. The petitioner submitted its tender offering to purchase lot No. 1 at Rs. 2,06,00,000/-. When the matter was placed before the Company Court for confirmation of sale, a question was raised whether the property of the company in liquidation situated in scheduled areas can be disposed of; whether it is prohibited by the provisions contained in A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1971 (Regulation 1 of 1971).
3. The Company Court directed the OL to enquire from the petitioner as to whether it is willing to purchase the property on unconditional offer made by it. Be that as it is, by an order dated 10-2-2003 in C.A.No. 860 of 2002, the Company Court decided that there is no prohibition for assignment or alienation of land of the company in liquidation situated in tribal areas in respect of which no tribal is claiming right or interest as against the company in liquidation. It appears, the Company Court also passed an order on 5-3-2003 directing the OL to forfeit the amount of EMD paid by the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- if it is not willing to buy the property unconditionally. Purporting to be and in obedience to the orders passed by the Company Court on 5-3-2003, the OL by a communication dated 6-3-2003 informed the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-paid as EMD stands forfeited. The petitioner assails this action of the OL.
4. In the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, the petitioner pleads as under.
………………..There is neither confirmation nor refund of EMD to the petitioner. The petitioner was not impleaded as a party and the Company Application No. 860/2001 was allowed. The first respondent herein acted adverse to the interests of the petitioner and issued orders in his proceedings No. OL/AP/ AR/RCC.2/95/2003 dated 6-3-2003. The said order appears to have been issued on the basis of the orders of this Hon’ble Court dated 5-3-2003 in C.A.No. 860/2001 and 354/ 2002 in RCC No. 2/95. This order is not available and I could not get a copy of the same. There is considerable confusion as to the orders that are passed in C.A.No. 860/ 2001. In any event basing upon the orders dated 5-3-2003 in C.A.No. 860/2001 and 354/ 2002 the first respondent informed the petitioner that the Official Liquidator was directed to forfeit the EMD deposited by the petitioner, who is the highest bidder in respect of Lot No. 1 comprising of land and buildings. It is not understandable how this Hon’ble Court, after having desired the Official Liquidator to obtain the willingness of the petitioner to have the confirmation of sale, can issue another order directing the Official Liquidator to forfeit the EMD of the petitioner firm. Why there should be such a direction to forfeit the EMD is not disclosed. The reasons for such orders are not communicated by the Official Liquidator in his proceedings dated 6-3-2003.
5. The above averments reveal that the petitioner is aware that the OL issued communication dated 6-3-2003 forfeiting EMD only in obedience to the orders of the Company Court in C.A.Nos. 860 of 2001 and 354 of 2002 in RCC No. 2 of 1995. Therefore, the writ petition challenging the order of the OL which is admittedly in accordance with the orders of the Company Court is not maintainable. It is needless to point out that the OL appointed by the High Court is not an independent entity. He acts at the behest and on behalf of the Company Court and if any person is aggrieved by an order passed by the OL pursuant to the orders of the Company Court, he has to necessarily approach the Company Court and seek, appropriate modification of the orders. In International Coach Builders Ltd. v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, 2003 AIR SCW 1524, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court categorically ruled that “Official Liquidator can do nothing without leave or concurrence of the Court and that all necessary applications must come to the Company Court”. The writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable.
6. Further, when the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction in different realm passed an order, the same order or consequential proceedings emanating therefrom cannot be challenged in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, considered this question. Suffice to extract the following placitum from head note ‘C’.
………………….In fact, the powers of the High Courts under Article 226 are, in a sense, wider than those of the Supreme Court, because the exercise of the powers of the Supreme Court to issue writs of certiorari are limited to the purposes set out in Article 32(1). There is yet another aspect of this matter to which it is necessary to refer. The High Court is a superior Court of Record under Article 215. If the decision of a superior Court on a question of its jurisdiction is erroneous, it can, of course, be corrected by appeal or revision as may be permissible under the law; but until the adjudication by a superior Court on such a point is set aside by adopting the appropriate course, it would not be open to be corrected by the Supreme Court If questions about the jurisdiction of superior Courts of plenary jurisdiction to pass orders like the impugned order are allowed to be canvassed in writ proceedings under Article 32, logically, it would be difficult to make a valid distinction between the orders passed by the High Courts inter parties, and those which are not inter parties in the sense that they bind strangers to the proceedings……………
7. When admittedly, the OL forfeited EMD amount in accordance with the orders or proceedings of the Company Court, the writ petition is not maintainable. The writ petition is wholly misconceived. It is open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies according to law.
8. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.