IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16477 of 2008 Between: M/s VGR Metal Industrial rep.by its Proprietrix Miss V.Shilpa D/o.Rep.by its G.P.A Holder Sri V.SarmaRao Rd No.92 Jubillee Hills Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Vijaya Bank rep.by its Authorised Officer Asset Revovery Management Brach Babukhan Estate Basheerbagh Hyderabad 2 Vijaya Bank rep.by its Senior Manager P.G Road Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the order dt.30-6-2008 passed by the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SURESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by M/s.V.G.R Metal Industries represented by its Proprietrix Miss V.Shilpa assailing the proceedings dated 30.6.2008 whereunder the objections raised by the petitioner under Section 13 (3) (A) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( for short ‘the Act’) were rejected. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued basing on a report of one K.Madhuri, Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Gokavaram Mandal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that said K.Madhuri never worked as Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Gokavaram Mandal and therefore, xrejection of the objections raised by the petitioner under Section 13 (3) (A) of the Act is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is well settled that no hearing can be demanded from the creditor at the disposal of the objections raised by the borrower. As per the provisions under the Act, the borrower may not be entitled to challenge the reasons communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons, unless his right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal is provided under Section 17 of the Act matures on any measure being taken under Section 13 (4) of the Act, vide the decision of the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Limited and others v. Union of India and others[1]. In view of the said proposition of law, the writ petition is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. __________ 30-07-2008 rkk [1] (2004) 4 SCC 311