IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 22891 of 2009 Between: Dr.Krishna Kopppula & Another. ..... PETITIONERS AND Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, New Delhi & two others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.22891 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) It is not in dispute that the petitioners availed the loan from the third respondent-Bank by creating equitable mortgage over the property bearing H.No.12-13-1179, admeasuring 145 sq.yds., Street No.10, Tarnaka, Secunderabad standing in the name of second petitioner. Due to non-payment of installments of loan, the third respondent-Bank initiated the proceedings for sale of the property by way of auction under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘Act’) by issuing possession notice on 21.1.2009 demanding payment of Rs.10,20,034/-. At that stage, the petitioners filed W.P.No.1643 of 2009 and this Court stayed the further proceedings pursuant to the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act on condition of petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs within four weeks. Inasmuch as the petitioners failed to comply with the said conditional order, a notice for auction was published on 29.9.2009 intimating the public in general about the auction proposed to be held on 04.11.2009. Questioning the said auction notice, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners. The petitioners have already invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and failed to comply with the conditional order passed in W.P.No.1643 of 2009. If aggrieved by the auction notice issued by the third respondent-Bank, the remedy for the petitioners is only to move the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act by way of an appeal and can seek appropriate relief including the relief of granting installments, as pleaded by them. In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) ____________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) OCTOBER 26, 2009 TSR