IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11500 of 2008 Between: M/s. Harshini Egg Farms (P) Ltd., Hyderabad & another. … Petitioners And The Chief Manager, ING Vysya Bank Limited, Guntur & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P. Lakshmana Rao Counsel for respondents 1-3: Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar Counsel for respondent No.5: Ms. A.V. Vijaya Kumar for Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11500 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing proclamation of sale recovery proceedings No.8 of 2004 in O.A.No.1023 of 2001 dated 17.04.2008 by respondent No.5, as illegal. Petitioner No.1 is running a poultry farm of which petitioner No.2 is a Director. The petitioners have borrowed loans from the ING Vysya Bank Limited, respondent No.1 herein. As they failed to repay the same, respondent No.1 filed O.A.No.1023 of 2001 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Pune (for short, “the Tribunal”) and the said O.A. was decreed. In pursuance of the said decree, the Tribunal has issued a Recovery Certificate for Rs.2,70,40,836/- on 26.09.2005. In pursuance of the said Recovery Certificate, respondent No.5 has issued proclamation of sale on 17.04.2008 for sale of the properties mentioned in Schedules I and II therein. This proceeding is questioned in this writ petition mainly on the ground that the properties sought to be sold is agricultural lands, which are exempted from sale under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. A counter affidavit is filed by the Regional Recovery Manager of respondent No.1 Bank, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioners have become defaulters, that in spite of OTS approved in January 2002, they have failed to repay the substantial part of the debt amount, that left with no other option, the bank has approached the Recovery Officer for proclamation of sale and that the said proclamation having been issued in pursuance of the decree and the recovery certificate issued by the Tribunal, no interference is called for. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that his clients has paid substantial amounts and that they are prepared to pay the balance sum of Rs.16,00,000/-, which according to them is due. The petitioners have filed an affidavit to this effect. Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 stated that as per the recovery certificate, the petitioners are liable to pay Rs.2,70,40,836/- and therefore the offer of Rs.16,00,000/- cannot be accepted. He also submitted that the petitioners have availed a wrong remedy of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when they are left with effective remedies under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the writ petition filed by the petitioners cannot be entertained. Under Section 30 of the Act notwithstanding anything contained in Section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under the Act may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. If the petitioners felt that the sale proclamation issued by the Recovery Officer is contrary to the provisions of the Act or illegal for any other reason, they should have availed the remedy of appeal under Section 30. In the face of existence of such a remedy, which, in my opinion, is efficacious, the petitioners are not entitled to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal at their option. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.14870 of 2008 and 21438 of 2009 and WVMP.No.356 of 2009 are also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.07.2010 ES