IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION Nos.24850 OF 2009 Between: Koganti Shanti. … Petitioner And M/s.Andhra Bank, represented by Chief Manager. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.24850 OF 2009 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent-bank in issuing a tender notice published in the eenadu newspaper as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to permit him to pay the loan amount according to the guidelines prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India in its circular No.rbi/2007-2008/253, dated 03.03.2008. Petitioner who availed term loan of Rs.46.00 lakhs and cash credit limit of Rs.18.00 lakhs, which was later enhanced to Rs.26.00 lakhs, with the respondent Bank failed to repay the loan amounts and thereby the respondent–Bank declared his accounts as Non Performing Assets, by issuing a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act”), dated 08.06.2009, followed by a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, dated 01.09.2009 which was served on the petitioner. It was contended that after issuance of the possession notice, the petitioner approached the bank officials to grant some time for repayment of the loan. But despite his request, on 17.10.2009 a tender notification has been published in the Eenadu newspaper revealing the auction date as 20.11.2009. Hence, the present writ petition. Unless there are guidelines for statutory enforcement, the petitioner cannot acquire any enforceable rights for rescheduling the loan. Against the service of possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, an appeal lies to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. Unless the petitioner exhausts the alternative remedy, we are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this court in the absence of any statutory rights. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy either by way of appeal or by approaching the Bank for reschedule of the loan. No order as to costs. ___________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J) _________________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 17.11.2009. Lmv