1 WP6665-11 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6665 OF 2011 Prakash Arvind Kulkarni ..Petitioner. V/s. The Authorised Officer ..Respondent. Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patwardan for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1. This petition is filed to challenge the notice dated 23rd May, 2011 issued by the authorized officer of the respondent No.1 to the guarantors namely Ajit Arvind Kulkarni, Ashok Arvind Kulkarni and Dilip Arvind Kulkarni. The said notice is issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 thereby calling up the said three persons as guarantors to discharge the outstanding liability of the petitioner within 60 days, failing which their mortgaged property would be auctioned. 2 WP6665-11 2. In the present case, the petitioner had taken loan of Rs.1.5 crores from Sangli Bank Ltd. (now merged with the respondent bank) on 18/2/2000. Ajit Arvind Kulkarni, Ashok Arvind Kulkarni and Dilip Arvind Kulkarni brothers of the petitioner stood as guarantors and mortgaged their property as a collateral security. As the petitioner failed to pay the loan instalments, the respondent No.1 filed original application before the DRT for recovery of Rs.1.15 crores which was decreed. Though the petitioner has discharged part of the liability by selling his property, substantial amount still remains outstanding. In respect of the outstanding liability the petitioner has filed an appeal before the DRAT and obtained stay qua the petitioner only. In these circumstances, in the absence of any stay operating in favour of the guarantors, issuance of notice to the guarantors for recovery of the decretal amount cannot be faulted. Moreover, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person and cannot be having any locus to challenge the notice issued to the guarantors. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.K. TATED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)