IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITON No. 18233 OF 2011 Between: Kkhalifa Bee … Petitioner V/s. Indian Bank, RBS Branch IV-Floor, Liberty Plaza, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, Represented by its Authorised Officer & Chief Manager & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Venkatesh Counsel for the Respondents : Sri A. Satyanarayana The court made the following: (order follows next page) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITON No. 18233 OF 2011 O R D E R : { Per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus to declare the notice dated 26-05-2011 issued by the first respondent-bank for sale of property bearing No. 19-3-626/5, Misigunj, near Fateh Darwaza, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and to pass such other suitable order as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent availed loan from the first respondent bank by mortgaging house bearing No. 19-3-625/5, situated at Misrigunj, near Fateh Darwaza, Hyderabad. The second respondent also obtained another loan and mortgaged house bearing No. 20-3-1104, situated at Shahgunj, inside mosque Autube Alam, Hyderabad. Without informing the same, the second respondent obtained loan of Rs.15 lakhs from the petitioner promising to repay the same within a period of two years, commencing from 21-1-2010 and as security towards repayment of the said loan, the second respondent mortgaged the house bearing No. 19-3-625/5, situated at Misrigunj, near Fateh Darwaza, Hyderabad and delivered possession of the same. 3. While things stood thus, the first respondent issued notice dated 26-10-2010 under section 13 (2) of the Securitisation Act proposing to hold auction of the house bearing No. 19-3-625/5, situated at Misrigunj, near Fateh Darwaza, Hyderabad. Having come to know about the same, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 13-4- 2011 to the first respondent-bank expressing her interest to purchase the property and offered to negotiate with the first respondent-bank. In response to the said letter, the first respondent-bank through its letter dated 22-5-2011 informed that if the petitioner wants to redeem the property, she has to pay the entire loan amount due as per the demand notice dated 26-10-2010 and that auction of the said property was fixed on 25-5-2011. But the auction dates earlier fixed were cancelled for want of good offers. Subsequently, the impugned notice dated 26-5-2011 was issued proposing to hold auction on 29-6-2011. Hence, the action of the first respondent-bank in calling upon the petitioner to pay the entire debt amount is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. The petitioner filed this writ petition aggrieved by an auction notice dated 26-5-2011 issued by the first respondent- bank for sale of property bearing No. 19-3-626/5, situated at Misigunj, near Fateh Darwaza, Hyderabad, pursuant to notice under Rules 6 and 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 and under the Securitisation and Interest Act, 2002 for realization of loan availed by the second respondent, as being illegal and arbitrary. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondent-bank. 5. The petitioner is third party and she wants to purchase the house bearing No. 19-3-625/5, situated at Misrigunj, near Fateh Darwaza, Hyderabad, which is mortgaged to the first respondent- bank by the second respondent. Now the first respondent-bank proposed to auction the said house on 29-06-2011 and they have issued auction notice under section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to the borrowers. The petitioner is a third party and there is no privity of contract between her and the first respondent- bank. This Court cannot go into the question of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently observed that this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide the disputed questions of this nature. 6. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED _______________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR 01-07-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 18233 OF 2011 (ORDER : Per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Circulation No. 162 Date: 01-07-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43