IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.10010 of 2009 Between: M/s Janata Seva and Cold Storage Pvt Ltd., Ankireddypalem, Rep by its Managing Director, Rep by its Managing Director, Mohammad Sikinder S/o. Sawar, aged 38, Occ: Business, R/o. NH 5 Road, Ankireddypalem, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Bank of India, Kannavarithota, Guntur. 2 Authorized officer, Stte Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Guntur. .....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 to issue a Writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice dated 23.3.2009 issued by the 1st respndent udner Rule 8(5) and (6) of the Security Interest (Engorcement) Rules, 2002 as being illegal and arbitrary and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.10010 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J) This writ petition is filed challenging the notice dated 23.3.2009 issued by the respondent-Bank under Rule 8 (5) and (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. While admitting this writ petition on 13-05-2009 this court had passed an order of interim stay subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) with the respondent bank within a period of four weeks. The petitioner has complied with the said interim order. Now a vacate stay petition is filed on behalf of the respondent-bank and with the consent of both the learned counsel, we have heard the writ petition itself for disposal. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent-bank discloses that the bank had, on 27.4.2009, auctioned one of the secured assets i.e., Plant, together with land and buildings which were mortgaged and realized a sum of Rs.3,49,50,000/- from the highest bidders. It is further stated that the auction purchasers paid the total bid amount and the respondent-bank issued Sale Certificate and also delivered the original title deeds to the purchasers on 12-05-2009. Thus, by the date this court had passed an interim order on 13-05-2009, the sale of the secured asset including issuance of Sale Certificate was completed, however, possession continuous to be with the bank. In view of the fact that the sale was completed even before this court admitted the writ petition and passed the interim orders, the further adjudication of the grievance of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, would not arise and it is appropriate to relegate the petitioner to alternative remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”), if so advised. It is needless to point out that the period, during which the writ petition is pending before this court, shall stand excluded for the purpose of computing limitation under Section 17 of the Act. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. The amount deposited by the petitioner shall abide by the result of the orders to be passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. However, no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 28th July, 2009 Note: Furnish copy of order within three days. B/o. pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.10010 of 2009 28th July, 2009