IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO:13263 OF 2010 DATED: 1.12.2010 Between: E. Purushotham Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND Indian Bank, Gangadhara Nellore Branch & others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.13263 OF 2010 ORDER:: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing paper publication dated 4-5-2010 published in Andhra Bhoomi daily newspaper of taking possession and consequent issue of phamplate for sale of the property in question as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside all the proceedings taken by the respondents under the SARFESI Act. 2. The petitioner is borrower and stated to have obtained loan of Rs.4 lacs for establishing poultry in agricultural land. It is stated that due to bad climate the birds did not survive and died and, as a consequence, the petitioner sustained heavy loss due to which the petitioner could not re-pay the amounts due and payable to the bank. As the petitioner was not regularly re- paying amounts to the bank, the respondent-rank initiated proceedings under the provisions of the SARFESI Act to sell the properties in question by putting them to public auction to realize the amounts due and payable to the bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the loan availed by the petitioner is an agricultural loan and, therefore, the provisions of the SARFESI Act are inapplicable to secured interest created in agriculture land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-bank stated that the loan availed by the petitioner is for the purpose of poultry farm and sheds and the secured asset is a poultry unit as such the said property is not exempted from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as there is no agricultural activity being conducted in the said property. It is also stated by the counsel that the bank as filed a civil suit being OS No.12 of 2000 for recovery of the debt amount against the petitioner and the lower Court, on contest by the parties, passed a preliminary decree in favour of the bank on 21-9-2006 and the preliminary decree has become final. It is stated that the bank has followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and issued demand notice giving 60 days time and that was duly acknowledged by the petitioner and the respondent-bank has taken symbolic possession of the property in question. In light of these things, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent-bank. That apart, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (c ) No. 10145 of 2010, dated 26th July 2010 at paragraph 27 of the judgment observed as under: “27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SRFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” 3. In the these circumstances, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR,J Dated 1-12-2010 Nrg THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.13263 OF 2010 ORDER:: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) Dated 1-12-2010