IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.18743 of 2009 Between: 1. Dharma Teja. 2. Mrs.Srivalli Teja. 3. M/s.Chitram Movies. … Petitioners And 1. The Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal, represented by its Presiding Officer. 2. the South Indian Bank, represented by its Chief Manager (Authorised Officer). … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.18743 of 2009 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the action of the respondents in issuing the second notice dated 18.08.2009, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the notice dated 18.08.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent-Bank. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that the 1st and 2nd petitioners are the partners of the 3rd petitioner-M/s.Chitram Movies. Petitioners availed the credit facility to a tune of rupees one crore from the 2nd respondent-Bank on various dates. The petitioners have paid some instalments and failed to repay the balance amount, which necessitated the 2nd respondent-Bank to invoke the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, “the Act”), followed by a possessory notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed S.A.No.115 of 2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and also filed an I.A.No.419 of 2009 for suspension of the possessory notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. The Debt Recovery Tribunal granted interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the possession notice dated 17.03.2009, on condition of petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with the 2nd respondent-Bank, on or before 30.04.2009. Petitioners deposited only Rs.20,00,000/- with the 2nd respondent-Bank, but failed to deposit the balance of Rs.5,00,000/-. Once again, the 2nd respondent-Bank issued notice on 18.08.2009 under Section 13(4) of the Act. According to the petitioners, once a possessory notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued by the 2nd respondent-Bank, which is a subject matter of the appeal in S.A.No.115 of 2009, it cannot issue a second notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, particularly when the appeal is pending. Questioning the said notice, the present writ petition is filed. It is well settled that when an appeal is pending before a Statutory Authority, if second notice under Section 13(4) of the Act is not maintainable, the remedy of the petitioners, if any, is only to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal for appropriate relief in the pending appeal (See Bombay Metropolitan Region Devlopment Authority, Bombay v. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. & Ors.[1]). In view of the same, we are of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal for appropriate relief. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY ________________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 26.10.2009. Lmv [1] JT 1995(1) SC 155