IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 4832 of 2009 Between: Marni Sajay, s/o. Peda Tata Rao, R/o. D.No. 24-15-6/A, R.V. Nagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Bank of India, Main Branch, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. Rep by its Branch Manager 2 Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Rajahmundry,E.G. District. 3 Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Rajahmundry,E.G. District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Auction Notice, published in the Hindu, Visakhapatnam on 8-2-2009 in Tender No. EA/Main Br. RJY/2009/64 to 67, dated 7-2-2009 to auction the properties owned by the petitioner and the guarantors as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the purport of provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder and direct the respondents desist themselves from proceedings with the Tender No. EA/Main Br. RJY/2009/64 TO 67, dated 7-2-2009 published in the Hindu, Visakhapatnam Edition, dated 8-2-2009. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.4832 of 2009 ORDER (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah): The petitioner questions the tender notification issued by the respondent Bank proposing to auction the properties of the petitioner (principal debtor) and the guarantors under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Securitisation Act’). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the petitioner availed the remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act by filing Securitisation Application in S.A.No.48 of 2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and the same is pending. It is also stated that certain interim orders are passed therein. In view of the above, the petitioner, having invoked the remedy available to him under the Securitisation Act by filing the Securitisation Application, is at liberty to pursue the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the Securitisation Application pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 19.03.2009 v v