IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.25941 OF 2009 DATE:08.12.2009 Between: Smt C. Parvathi …… Petitioner And: Indian Bank, rep. By its Assistant General Manager, Hyderabad and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.25941 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing notice dated 20.11.2009 under the Provisions of Securitization Act against the property of the petitioner without following any due process of law including provisions as contemplated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 54 of 2002, (for short the Act) as illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that the 1st respondent has issued notice dated 20.11.2009 alleging that earlier they have issued notice dated 18.08.2009 calling upon the 2nd respondent company and the petitioner herein along with some other persons to pay Rs.1,53,89,878/- together with future interest from 31.07.2009 till date of repayment, that in spite of receipt of the said notice the same had not been repaid by the petitioner and others within stipulated period of 60 days and that they have issued present notice intended to take possession of the immovable property of the petitioner situated at H.No.8-3- 229/D/1/15, Mega City Number 135 admeasuring 337 sq. yards with G+2 structure thereon situated at Sravanthi Nagar, Venkatagiri, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. It is stated that no notice under Section 13(2) of the Act read with Rule 9 of the Rules framed there under was served on the petitioner before initiation of the proceedings for taking over the possession of the property. Therefore, possessory notice dated 20.11.2009 issued by the respondents bank is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act and the same is liable to be set aside. The respondents/bank filed a counter denying the averments stating that the notice as contemplated under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 18.08.2009 was served on the petitioner, that as the loan accounts have been classified as N.P.A accounts by 31.3.2009, the 1st respondent/bank being a Secured Creditor under the Act has invoked the Provisions of the Act and issued demand notices dated 18.08.2009 to the borrower as well as the petitioner. The petitioner approached the bank and informed that the notice sent to her was misplaced and requested for issuing one more copy of the notice. Accordingly, one more copy of the demand notice dated 18.08.2009 was furnished to the petitioner and the receipt of the same was acknowledged by her on the copy of the Bank on 05.10.2009. The petitioner having received the demand notice twice has not cleared the loan amount. Even prior to the serving the demand notice, a notice dated 01.06.2009 was also sent to the petitioner along with borrower informing the petitioner and others that the loan account has been classified as N.P.A as on 31.03.2009 and demanded to clear the dues within 10 days of the receipt of the said letter and in case of any default the bank would proceed with the recovery of the due amount of Rs.1,53,89,879/- by initiating action under the Provisions of the Act. The petitioner filed this writ petition without availing the appellate remedy before this Court. The respondents/bank also brought out to notice that the principal borrower/2nd respondent filed Second Appeal in S.A.No.336 of 2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad questioning the impugned notice. In view of the alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 17 of the Act, the present writ petition cannot be entertained on the ground that the notice dated 20.11.2009 issued by the respondents/bank under Section 13(2) of the Act was received by the petitioner. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal as available under Section 17 of the Act. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:08.12.2009. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.25941 OF 2009 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) DATE:08.12.2009 GK.