IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10349 of 2008 Between: Munaga RAghuram S/o.Venkata Seshaiah R/o.19/468 Chinna Bazar, Nellore ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad Tirupathi 2 The Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Srirangaraja Puram, Stone House pet, Nellore .....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 issue on appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not granting time of the 6 months for 4 installments vide Letter No.F/RM/GRM/151 dated 16.4.2008 is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and against the principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.NO.10349 OF 2008 O R D E R; This writ petition has been filed by Munaga Raghuram with a prayer to declare the action of the respondents in not granting time of six months for payment of the amount due to them as illegal, arbitrary and malafide. 2. The petitioner availed housing loan of Rs.7,00,000/- on deposit of title deeds of his residential house bearing Door No.19/468, Chinna Bazar, Nellore on 20.01.2005. He incurred loss in business and therefore, he could not pay loan instalments. The respondents issued notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act on 5.8.2006. He made representation to the respondents on 5.11.2006 seeking waiver of penal interest and settlement of account under ‘one time settlement scheme’. He offered to pay Rs.2,00,000/- and sought for two months time for payment of the amount after waiving penal interest. The respondents proposed to auction the mortgaged house. Thereupon the petitioner filed writ petition and the same writ petition came to be disposed of directing the petitioner to make a representation and there upon the respondents to consider the same with regard to grant of reasonable time. The petitioner submitted representations and the respondents considered the same directing him to pay 1st instalment on or before 15.5.2008 and final instalment on or before 15.6.2008 and closed the account. Dissatisfied with period granted for liquidating the liability, the petitioner choose to approach this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 4. The relief sought for is wholly misconceived. The question of directing the respondents to grant time for payment of the amount due to them in instalments in a proceeding taken out under the provisions of Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution does not arise. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at admission stage. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 12th June, 2008. PNV To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.NO.10349 OF 2008 12TH JUNE,2008