THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO. 16385 of 2009 13-04-2010 BETWEEN; M.Rama Devi wife of Rambabu ...Petitioner vs. Union Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Koyyalgudem and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.16385 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) By the impugned proceedings dated 25-07-2009, the 2nd respondent as th authorised officer of the 1st respondent-secured creditor, has taken possessio of the property mortgaged by the petitioner towards security for the loan availe by the petitioner in 1999, in an amount of Rs.3 lakhs. Possession was taken o the property in question, the housing plot of an extent of 483 square yard together with the building thereon bearing door No.11-172, Parimipudi village Kannapuram road, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavai District, in exercise o powers under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financia Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short “2002 Act” read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Ruiles,2002. The petitioner asserts to have paid Rs.3,50,084/- prior to the issuance by th 1st respondent of a notice dated 09.02.2007 under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Ac After issuance of Sec.13(2) notice, the petitioner claims to have paid in all a amount of RS.2 lakhs and is aggrieved by continuation of possession of th secured asset by the 1st respondent despite clearing a substantia amount of the amount due to the 1st respondent. The petitioner does not asse nor establish that the secured asset was irrationally or irregularly declared a non performing asset nor that the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of th 2002 Act is incompetent. The payments made by the petitioner subsequent t valid initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Act would not elevat the status of the loan account from a non-performing asset of the secure creditor nor would permit interdiction of further proceedings under the provision of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also asserts that the petitioner ha applied to the 1st respondent on 17-09-2009 seeking a One Time Settlemen (OTS) and that in the circumstances the action of the 1st respondent in continuin in possession of the secured asset without passing orders on the petitioner’ application for OTS is arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner concede that there is no legal right of the petitioner nor a corollary obligation of the 1 respondent to accept the petitioner’s request for OTS and it is also conceded tha accepting OTS is a discretion of the 1st respondent. In the absence of a legal obligation, no Mandamus can issue to direct the 1 respondent to a particular course of action. This principle is axiomatic. On th aforesaid analysis, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. Th interim orders dated 11-08-2009 and 12-04-2010 stands dissolved. No order a to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 13th APRIL 2010. TSNR