IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 13522 of 2009 Between: 1 Kurnala Lakshmi Priyanka, D/o. K. Giridhar, Guntur Rep by their maternal Grand father and next friend, Kattamudi Nageswara Rao 2 Kurnala Haneesha, D/o. K. Giridhar, Guntur 3 Kurnala Bindu Madhurya, D/o. K. Giridhar, Guntur ..... PETITIONER(S) AND ING Vysya Bank Limited, 1.7.1, T. Subbaramireddy Complex, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad, Rep by its Authorised Officer .....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 any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ of Certiorari and call for the records from the respondent pertaining to Notice dated 5-5-2009 issued by the respondent to the father of the petitioners herein and quash the same and issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.DANTU.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.13522 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari assailing the legality and validity of the notice dated 5.5.2009 issued by the respondent Bank to the father of the petitioners herein. It is observed by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions that Bank can proceed either under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 or by invoking the provisions of the Securatisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). The respondent Bank has invoked the provisions of the Act by issuing 13(2) demand notice and the petitioners have to repay the amount within 60 days or to give reply to the said notice. We cannot interdict with the notice unless the notice issued by the respondent Bank lacks jurisdiction. This writ petition is premature and the same is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 08-07-2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}