IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21764 of 2008 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioner, Smt Geetha Rani, assailing the action of the respondents in taking possession of her property bearing No.17-1-382/SB/12/K, Balaji Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad. The petitioner availed a housing loan from the respondent Bank. Consequent on her failure to pay the instalments, the account came to be treated as non- performing asset and proceedings under the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘ the Act’) came to be initiated. A notice under Sub Section 2 of Section 13 of the Act came to be issued to the petitioner to enable her to pay the amount due, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Since the petitioner failed to pay the amount, an order under Sub Section 4 of Section 13 of the Act came to be passed. Earlier, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.1665 of 2007 challenging the notice issued under Sub Section 2 of Section 13 of the Act. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 25.01.2008. The relevant portion of the said order is as hereunder: “Admittedly, the petitioner obtained loan from the respondents for construction of a house and failed to repay the same and, therefore, the respondents initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioner wants to settle the loan under one time settlement scheme. Since the dispute is between the respondent and the petitioner with regard to the settlement of the amounts due to the bank, this Court, under Article 226 of the constitution of India cannot issue a direction to the respondents to settle the loan amount under one time settlement scheme and it is for the respondents to take a decision on the said issue. Though this Court granted interim orders till 04.02.2007 only, it is stated that the respondents have not taken any action pursuant to the impugned notices so far. If the petitioner intends to settle the issue, she is at liberty to make a representation to the respondents who may consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law”. After disposal of the said writ petition, an order under Sub Section 4 of Section 13 of the Act came to be passed. The petitioner apprehending seizure of the premises pursuant to the order passed under Sub Section 4 of Section 13 of the Act approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made certain payments and therefore, the action of the respondents in taking possession and sealing of the secured asset is not legal and proper. A fact remains that the respondents initiated the proceedings under the Act after treating the loan account of the petitioner as non-performing asset. Once an order is passed under Sub Section 4 of Section 13 of the Act, there is a statutory remedy to the petitioner by way of an appeal. The petitioner has to avail the statutory remedy, as provided under Section 17 of the Act. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. _________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date:30.09.2008 sj