IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 23112 of 2007 Between: 1 Budmala Sravan Kumar, S/o. B. Kondaiah, 2 Budmala Tulsilatha, W/o. Sravan Kumar, Both Petitioners are residing at H.NO. 6-3-172, Premnagar, Khairathabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Standard Chartered Bank, rep. by its Authorised Officer, Having its Branch at 9-1-164, IVth Floor, Amsri Plaza, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order, or direction more so a writ in the nature of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent in trying to take forcible possession of our house property bearing H.No. 6-3-172, Premagar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and direct the respondent not to take forcible possession without following due process of law by giving an opportunity to us by considering our request and may pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VASANTHA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SURESH REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in trying to take forcible possession of petitioners’ house property bearing H.No. 6-3-172, Premnagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondent not to take forcible possession without following due process of law. As the petitioners could not pay the installment due for the month of June, 2007, the respondent-Bank issued demand notice dated 18.8.2007 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) for payment of entire loan amount of Rs. 17,03,885/- within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice. This Court cannot interdict the notice so as to prevent the bank from discharging its statutory obligation under Section 13(4) of the Act. Section 13(2) gives an opportunity to the petitioner to make a representation or repay the amount. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking relief as mentioned above. This Court cannot entertain this Writ Petition challenging the notice preventing the Bank from discharging its statutory obligation. It is settled preposition of law that this Court does exercise jurisdiction when notice is issued by the Bank asking the petitioner to file reply to the notice, unless notice issued by the authority lacks jurisdiction. This Writ Petition is premature and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal from today if measures under Section 13(4) are taken by Bank. It is made clear that since the matter is pending before this court the said period shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating limitation, if any under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dt. 01.07.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD Copies