THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.6229 of 2011 ORDER (Per Sri Ghulam Mohammed, J) The second petitioner is the Managing Director of the first petitioner company. They availed credit facilities from the respondent Bank from time to time for business purpose by securing the properties in question. As they failed to liquidate the loan amounts, the respondent issued notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). Questioning the said notices, the petitioners and the wife of the second petitioner filed S.A.No.94 of 2004 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Through order dated 17.03.2009, the Tribunal dismissed the S.A., by directing the petitioners and the wife of the second petitioner to pay the entire loan amount on or before 30.05.2009. As the petitioners failed to pay the same, the respondent issued sale notice dated 08.07.2009, fixing the date of auction as 10.08.2009. Questioning the said notice, the petitioners filed S.A.No.205 of 2009 before the Tribunal, which in turn dismissed the same on 10.12.2010. Thereafter, the respondent issued another sale notice dated 18.01.2011, fixing the date of auction as 28.02.2011. Challenging the said notice, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 2. The respondent-Bank filed counter stating that the respondent filed O.A.No.239 of 2003 before the Tribunal against the petitioners for recovery of total debt amount of Rs.91,05,601- 78ps and the same is pending. It is stated that the petitioners filed the cases with an intention to delay the payment of loan outstanding amounts. It is further stated that in pursuance of the notice impugned, the properties in question were auctioned, the highest bidder deposited the entire amount, the Sale Certificate was issued in his favour and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the sale notice indicated for payment of Rs.58 lakhs and odd, the respondent Bank is seeking to recover the said amount along with interest @ 17% with quarterly rests from 01.04.2001 with costs thereon. He further contended that as the auction notice did not indicate the entire amount payable by the petitioners, the said notice and the auction thereof are invalid and are liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank on the other hand submits that when once the account has been classified as NPA, the interest amount cannot be shown in the notices as per the RBI guidelines. He further submitted that when the statute wants an act to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in such a manner and he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY v. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PRIVATE LIMITED[1] wherein it was held as under: “The statutory interdict of use and enjoyment of the property must be strictly construed. It is well settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. The State and other authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature of statute. They must act within the four corners thereof”. He also submitted that the Bank approved valuer valued the property at Rs.1,84,04,500/-. 6. Though the Tribunal granted time to the petitioners for payment of the entire loan amount in S.A.No.94 of 2004, they have not paid the same. Hence, the respondent Bank published sale notice, dated 08.07.2009 in Deccan Chronicle Newspaper fixing sale of the schedule property on 10.08.2009. S.A.No.205 of 2009 filed by the petitioners challenging the said notice was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 20.12.2010. Again the approach of the petitioners in filing the writ petition challenging the sale notice dated 18.01.2011, stating that the respondent Bank has not shown the exact amount, is a futile exercise. In any case, as the properties in question were auctioned on 28.02.2011 in pursuance of the notice impugned, highest bidder deposited the entire amount and the respondent also issued the Sale Certificate in favour of the highest bidder and O.A.No.239 of 2033 filed by the respondent is pending before the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the notice impugned. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:28.03.2011 sj [1] AIR 2003 SC 511