IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 2815 of 2009 BETWEEN: 1 M/s. Muralikrishna Timber and Size Merchants, represented by its Proprietor Alla Muraligopala Rao, R/o.7-4-1, Medarabasti, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2 M/s. Muralikrishna Rice & Flour Mill, represented by its Proprietor Alla Muraligopala Rao, R/o.7-4-1, Medarabasti, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 3 Smt. Alla Anjaneyamma W/o. late A.Suryanarayana R/o.7-4-1, Medarabasti, Kothagudem, Khammam District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State Bank of Hyderabad, represented by its Authorized Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2 The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Kothagudem Main Branch, Near Railway Station, (Bhadrachalam road), Khammam 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 writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents and their subordinates in taking steps to proceed against the mortgaged properties of the petitioners without issuing any further notice under Securitization Act and without providing opportunity as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed against the petitioners or their mortgaged properties (Account Nos. 52132129097 and 52132129360) and further grant one year time to discharge the loan accounts subject to verification of accounts, and pass such other or further orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in taking steps to proceed against their mortgaged property without issuing any further notice under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) and without providing any opportunity as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents not to proceed against them or their mortgaged properties in respect of Account Nos.52132129097 and 52132129360 and further grant one year time to discharge the loan accounts subject to verification. 2. Petitioners earlier filed WP.Nos.21783, 21764 and 21769 of 2007 questioning the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 14.02.2008 dismissed the writ petitions confirming the impugned action of issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act while granting liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate representation requesting for reasonable time to pay the amounts and also giving a liberty to invoke the other alternative remedies available to them in law. 3. Insofar as the liberty given to avail alternative remedy is concerned, if the respondent bank proceeds to sell the said property without following due process of law i.e. without issuing Section 13(4) notice, it is open to the petitioners question the same, but we do not see any material that shows that the respondent bank is not proceeding in accordance with law. So far no notice under Section 13(4) has been issued. Therefore, the question of selling the said property by way of public auction does not arise. However, as and when the respondent bank proceeds against the petitioners in violation of the SARFAESI Act, it is open to the petitioners to question the same. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 16, 2009 DSK