IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19141 of 2008 Between: Namburi Nirmala Devi, D/o. Late Namburi Rama Swamy Stetty, R/o. D.No. III-145-9-6-4-1, Prashanthi Nagar, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 ING Vysya Bank, Ltd. Madanapalle, Rep by its Branch Manager, Ahmed Complex, No. 221, C.T.M. Road, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 2 Namburi Parvathamma, W/o. Late N. Rama Swamy Setty, R/o. D.No. III-145-9-6-4, Prashanthi Nagar, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 3 Namburi Ramesh Babu, W/o. Late N. Rama Swamy Setty, R/o. D.No. III-145-9-6-4, Prashanthi Nagar, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 4 The Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Banking Division), Jeevandeep Buildings, Sansadmarg, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the representation dt. 27- 8-2008 of the petitioner and proceedings with the scale of the house bearing Door No. III-1459-6-4-1, Madanapalle town as per the paper publication dated 29-7-2008 as illegal, improper, unjust and violation of principles of natural justice and further direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation to the petitioner dated 27-8- 2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition has been ﬁled by Namburi Nirmala Devi assailing the action of the ING Vysya bank/1st respondent in not considering the representation, dated 27-08-2008, and proceeding with the sale of the house bearing Door No.III-145-9-6-4-1, Madanapalle town. 2. The background facts of the case leading to ﬁling of the Writ Petition by the petitioner, in brief, are that Namburi Parvathamma/2nd respondent is the mother and Namburi Ramesh Babu/3rd respondent is the brother of the petitioner. Namburi Parvathamma purchased a house bearing Door No.III-145-9-6-4 under registered sale deed from Peravali Saraswathamma. Thereafter, she renovated the house into two portions. She raised a loan from the ING Vysya bank Limited. She oﬀered the house as a security for the loan. According to the petitioner, the property standing in the name of Namburi Parvathamma/2nd respondent is a joint family property and a partition has been eﬀected in the year 1997 and a memorandum of partition deed came to be exhibited on 16-09-1998. As per the partition, northern portion detailed as ‘B’ schedule fell to share of her and her younger brother namely Shankar and southern portion detailed as ‘A’ schedule fell to share of Parvathamma- 2nd respondent and Ramesh Babu-3rd respondent. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, Shankar relinquished his right under a registered document, dated 07-08-2006, by accepting Rs.1,00,000/- in her favour. In the meanwhile the bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as Act, 2002) for recovery of the loan amount availed by Parvathamma-2nd respondent. The bank passed ﬁnal orders under sub-Section 4 of Section 13 of the Act for the year, 2003 and the authorized Oﬃcer took possession of the properties under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Rules, 2002. The 1st respondent issued a sale notice, dated 29-07-2008. The petitioner claims to have submitted representation, dated 27-08-2008. Assailing the inaction of the 1st respondent on her representation, she approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material papers placed on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and her brother Shankar got ‘A’ schedule properties in partition eﬀected in the year, 1997 and subsequently her brother executed a relinquishment deed on 07-08-2006 by receiving Rs.1,00,000./- and thereby she became the absolute owner of the ‘B’ schedule property. 5. I have gone through the notice of sale, dated 29-07-2008. It is stated in the notice that the mortgaged property was taken possession by the authorized Oﬃcer on 08-12-2003. The relinquishment deed pressed into service by the petitioner is subsequent to initiation of proceedings under the Act, 2002. By date of relinquishment deed dated 07-08-2006, the property had been vested with the Authorized Oﬃcer of the 1st respondent bank. Therefore the contention of the petitioner that 1st respondent bank has no right to proceed with the sale of house in Dr.No.111-145-9-6-4-1 has no merit. 6. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 04th September, 2008 Tsy To 1 The Branch Manager, ING Vysya Bank, Ltd. Madanapalle, Ahmed Complex, No. 221, C.T.M. Road, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 2 The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Finance (Banking Division), Jeevandeep Buildings, Sansadmarg, New Delhi. 3 2CCs to 4 2CD copies