IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 20754 of 2008 Between: 1 B.Kannaiah S/o.Sri Laxmaiah R/o.Plot No.104/B Srinilaya Township Badangpet,Saroornagar , Ranga Reddy District 2 Syed Younus W/o.Late Syed Eyas R/o.Plot No.324/A, Srinilaya Township Badangpet,Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State Bank of India., Shamsheergunj Branch Hyderabad, Rep.by its Authorised Officer 2 M/s.Srinilaya Constructions, Beside Indo American School, Vaishali Nagar,Champapet, Sagar Road,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring Sale Notice dated 9.9.2008 published in Hindu Newspaper on 13.9.2008 by the first respondent Bank relating to the sale of first petitioner property in plot No.104/B,and the second petitioner property in Plot No.324/A in SY.No.88 of Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, malafide contrary to the provisions of Securitisation Act, 2002 and set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.20754 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-bank in issuing the sale notice dated 09.09.2008, published in Hindu newspaper on 13.09.2008, to sell the petitioners property in plot Nos.104/B and 324/A in Sy.No.88 of Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and contrary. This writ petition is confined only to the first petitioner since the second petitioner had cleared off the loan amount availed by him. It is the case of the first petitioner that he had obtained loan of Rs.4,75,000/- from the respondent–bank for purchasing a plot and for constructing a house through second respondent. The grievance of the first petitioner is that the respondent-bank had straight away issued sale notice under Section 8(9) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 without serving notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Hence the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondent-bank. The loan taken by the first petitioner was only Rs.4,75,000/-. Though it was claimed in the counter that notice under Section 13(2) was served on the first petitioner’s wife, the respondent-bank failed to file proof acknowledging receipt of notice. As the respondent-bank has not proceeded further with the sale, we permit the first petitioner to make a representation to the respondent-bank for clearing off the loan amount within two weeks from today. On such a representation being made by the first petitioner, the respondent-bank shall reschedule the instalments and communicate the same to him. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dt:18-06-2009 usd