HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P. No. 21686 of 2009 O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) The petitioner availed a loan facility from the 1st respondent bank, to a tune of Rs.18 lacs, on 31.05.2006 and offered the documents relating to Flat No. 504 in Bhavana Residency, Plot Nos. 81 and 87, Rajeev Nagar, Yousufguda, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. He was prompt in payment of the installments till December 2006. Thereafter, for the unforeseen reasons, he committed default in repaying the balance loan amount of Rs.2,55,000/-. The 1st respondent bank, without giving any notice or intimation to the petitioner, got published a notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the 2002 Act’) and took symbolic possession of the flat on 23.01.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not served with any notice under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act said to have been issued by the bank, demanding him to pay the amount. Subsequently, he filed Writ Petition No. 1660 of 2009 before this Court challenging his dispossession from the above said property. This Court, by its order, dated 03.02.2009 in W.P.M.P.No. 2092 of 2009, granted interim stay on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.3 lacs within a period of six weeks from the said date, to the credit of the bank. It was further made clear that if possession was taken over, the same should be re- delivered to the petitioners. However, he could deposit only Rs.1,40,000/- to the credit of the 1st respondent bank. Consequently, the said flat was sold by the 1st respondent bank to one of its staff member, by name Smt. P.A. Meenakshi, the 5th respondent herein, for a meager sum of Rs.23,25,000/-. Hence, the petitioner, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in selling the flat of the petitioner to Respondent No.5 as arbitrary and illegal and prays to set aside the same. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1660 of 2009 and, therefore, the 1st respondent bank proceeded to auction the property, which was taken possession of, by issuing the notice under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act. Under Section 17 of the 2002 Act, a statutory appeal lies to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter against the possession notice issued under Section 13(4). In view of the availability of alternative remedy of appeal to the petitioner, the present Writ Petition cannot be entertained and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No costs. ----------------------- (A. GOPAL REDDY,J) ------------------------------------- (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 20th October 2009 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}