HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No : 8989 of 2010 O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been instituted by the writ petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in taking possession of his property as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is said to have obtained loan of Rs.4,27,000/- for construction of a house, on 24.10.2003 and he was regular in payment of the installments. Subsequently, his wife underwent major surgery, he had to spend huge money for her treatment, as a result of which, he failed to repay the loan amount properly. To his surprise, on 08.03.2010, the officials of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur have come and sealed his house and handed over the keys of the same to the bank officials. The claim of the petitioner is that no notice as required under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002 has been served on him. Therefore, he filed I.A.Nos. 309 and 310 of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad seeking stay of all further proceedings and to hand over the physical possession of the property in question. The Tribunal, by an order dated 15.03.2010, granted interim stay of all further proceedings, on condition of depositing a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, out of which, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- on or before 30.03.2010 and the balance Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 30.04.2010 with the respondent bank, but however, rejected the Application filed for handing over the possession of the property, though the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the Writ Petition. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has moved an Application for recovery of possession of the property in question, but no order has been passed as yet. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank has drawn our attention to Section 17(3) of the Act, which reads as follows: “ If the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that any of the measures referred to in sub- section (4) of Section 13 of the SRFAESI Act, taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under and require restoration of the management of the secured assets to the borrower or restoration of possession of the secured assets to the borrower, it may by order, declare the recourse to any one or more measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor as invalid and restore the management of the secured assets to the borrower, as the case may be, and pass such order as it may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to any of the recourses taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of Section 13.” It is represented that the bank has decided to approach the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by filing an Application under Section 14(1) of the Act for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to take physical possession of the property. In view of the factual scenario, without going into the merits of the matter, we are of the opinion that since the matter is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, it is for the Tribunal to pass orders in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------- (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) ----------------------- (G. CHANDRAIAH, J) 21st June 2010 ksld 1. ..... REGISTRAR 2. // TRUE COPY // 3. SECTION OFFICER To 4. 1) 2 CD copies 5. Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} 3rd August 2009 ksld