IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 12751 of 2003 Between: K. Gopi, S/o K.V. S. Prasad, R/o Plot No. 23 Vahini Nagar, Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Banking Division), Jeevandeep Buildings, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-1 2 The Prudential Coopertive Bank Ltd., Rep by Asst General manager-cum- Authorised Officer, F8-1-381, Rastrapathi Road, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue an appropriate Writ order or direction, more in the nature of mandamus, declaring the Securitisation and reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 more particularly Section 13 (2) and 13(4) of the Act as invalid, illegal, and unconstitutional and consequently declare the notice issued by the 2nd respondent in Ref. No. PCB/RP/AR/ESI/415/03-04 dated 8-5-2003 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 300-A and set a side the same and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.N.HEMENDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No. 12751 of 2003 ORDER: (Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the provisions of Sections 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) as ultra vires and also the notice issued thereunder as arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. 2. The said issue is no more res integra as the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the said Act in a decision reported in Mardia Chemicals Limited and others Vs. Union of India and others (2004) 4 SCC 311). Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from taking any other alternative remedies that may be available to him in law. No order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt. 23.6.2009 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}