IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH 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 : 13670 of 2009 Between: T.V.Venkata Satyanarayana S/o.late Satyanarayana Murthy R/o.H.No.1-48/20-A, Sringeri Colony, Mohan nagar, Kothapeta, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union Bank of India, represented by its Deputy General Manager, NRO - Nodal Regional Office, 2nd floor, Lata Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001. 2 The Union Bank of India, represented by its Chief Manager, D.No.6-1-67/14, 1st Floor, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Union Bank of India, represented by its Authorised Officer, R/o. D.No.6-1-67/14, 1st Floor, Public Garden Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4 M/s. Sri Krishna Motors, represented by its Managing Partner Mr.S.Balakrishna R/o.3-5-784/A/2/1, King Koti Road, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action under notice issued by the 3rd respondent namely "The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Saifabad, Hyderabad" vide Notice No.ADV/504/41007 dated 9.6.2009, without considering the objections submitted by the petitioner on 10.7.2006 to the 1st notice issued by the 3rd respondent No.CMRD/BN 373 dated: Nil, received by the Petitioner on 27.6.2006, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of fundamental rights and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.S.N.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: . 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 third respondent- The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Saifabad, Hyderabad in issuing notice dated 9.6.2009 without considering the objections submitted by the petitioner on 10.7.2006 to the first notice issued by the third respondent, received by the petitioner on 27.6.2006, as arbitrary and illegal. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the guarantor. The 4th respondent herein who is the borrower has obtained cash credit facility for Rs. 2,00,000/- from the second respondent-Bank in the year 1997 and the said facility was extended from 2,00,000/- to Rs. 6,00,000/- in the year 1999. it is submitted that when the petitioner went to second respondent-Bank with a request to release his security given to the 4th respondent firm, the Chief Manager of the Bank informed him that the Credit facility which was given was enhanced from Rs. 6,00,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/- without his consent and knowledge and without taking any signatures on the extended documents. Hence, petitioner addressed a letter to the Bank requesting to release the document but the Bank has not given any reply. It is also submitted that the petitioner received a notice on 27.6.2006 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SRFAESI Act”) demanding a sum of Rs. 9,23,183.22 ps and the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 5.7.2006 to drop the action against him. But no reply was given and again on 9.6.2009 the third respondent issued notice under section 13(2) before taking any action under Section 13(4) demanding Rs. 13.04.038/-. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the third respondent having issued the notice in the year 2006 failed to follow the procedure as contemplated under the Act and again issuance of second notice, which is impugned, is arbitrary and illegal. He also contended that the inaction of respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any action pursuant to his objection to the first notice in the year 2006 and, therefore, they cannot now after a lapse of three years, initiate action again under Section 13(2) of the Act. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the material made available on record. It is needless to mention that this Writ Petition is premature inasmuch as there is no cause of action since the notice issued is only under Section 13(2) of the Act and the petitioner can as well file his objection or give reply to the notice raising all his objections. It is stated that as the petitioner has already submitted his detailed representation mentioning all the facts on 12.7.2006 but no reply was received by the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the petitioner will have an opportunity to file his objections to the notice or if aggrieved he can filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act. Without availing the remedy available under Section 17 of the Act, the petitioner straight away approached this Court by way of present Writ Petition. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to raise all his objections before the respondent-Bank and the respondent-bank shall consider the same and pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 09.07.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies