THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO W.P.No.4657 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the notice dated 19.02.2011, issued by the second respondent Bank in pursuance of notice dated 30.11.2010, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner availed house loan facility for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- from the third respondent Bank by mortgaging the house property. It is stated that since the third respondent is increasing the loan tenure when there is hike in interest rate, the petitioner filed C.C.No.541 of 2009 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad, which in turn, allowed the same directing the third respondent to reinstate the earlier tenure of the loan i.e., 120 EMIs in total and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-for mental agony, depression etc., suffered by the petitioner and costs of Rs.2,000/- within one month. Thereafter, as the petitioner defaulted in payment of the loan amount, the loan account has been classified as non-performing asset and respondent Nos.2 and 3 issued notices dated 30.11.2010 and 19.02.2011 under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) respectively, to the petitioner and the co-applicant. The petitioner states though he proposed One Time Settlement through letter, dated 18.01.2011, the respondents without deciding the same issued tenant vacation notice dated 19.02.2011 to him. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed counter stating that the OTS proposal given by the petitioner was refused vide letter dated 15.02.2011, as the amount proposed to be paid was below the principal amount and thereafter, issued notice dated 19.02.2011 to the petitioner. It is stated that the respondents Bank filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad and by virtue of the orders of the said Court, the Advocate Commissioner executed the warrant on 06.06.2011 with the help of police, conducted panchanama and handed over the physical possession of the property to the Bank. Therefore, the respondents have followed the procedure under the Act and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3-Bank. 5. It is represented by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Bank that the total outstanding amount due by the petitioner is approximately 45 lakhs. Since the respondents Bank took possession of the property in question on 06.06.2011 by virtue of the orders passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Hyderabad and the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 17(1) of the Act as against the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:13.06.2011. sj