THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.31782 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking writ o f mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the auction notification published in “Andhra Prabha”, a Telugu daily newspaper, on 20-10-2010, by quoting reserve price as Rs.1.50 crores and inviting sealed offers for the petitioners’ property bearing No.3- 67/2 in Survey No.79(P) of Nallagandla Village, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to set aside the entire auction process initiated under the impugned publication. 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that they have availed a home loan of Rs.1,53,00,000/- from the respondent on 31-08-2007 and they have to repay the same in 154 equal monthly installements from 01-10-2007 to 01-07-2020. There were certain defaults in payment of monthly installements, and therefore, the respondent had issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) on 15-05-2009 demanding them to pay the amount due within 60 days; though they paid the amount due, it was adjusted towards corresponding installments by the respondent and highhandedly issued notice under Section 13(4) of the Act and forcibly taken possession of the petitioners’ property in December, 2009; though the property is of worth more than Rs.3.50 crores, respondent issued the auction notification in “Andhra Prabha”, a Telugu daily newspaper, on 20-10-2010, by quoting reserve price as Rs.1.50 crores and invited sealed offers for auction of the petitioners’ property. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has issued notice to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Act on 15-05-2009 asking him to repay the amount due to it within 60 days and as the amount was not repaid, notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 25-07-2009 informing them about taking possession of the mortgaged property and to sell the same for realization of the amount due and challenging the same, petitioners filed W.P. No.24974 of 2009 and the same was dismissed by this Court by order dated 01-12-2009 observing that they have effective alternative remedy and accordingly directed them to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He further submits that having failed in the earlier writ petition, petitioners cannot file this writ petition again for the same relief, as such, this petition is not maintainable even on merits and is liable to be dismissed. He has also submitted that the respondent has already sold the property in dispute in the auction conducted pursuant to the auction notification and purchaser of the property has already paid the entire sale consideration. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed dismissal of the earlier writ petition filed by him by this Court, but contends that the petitioners have already paid the amount due to the respondent, but the respondent highhandedly initiated the action for sale of the petitioners property by way of auction by quoting its reserve price as Rs.1.50 crores though the property is worth of more than Rs.3.50 crores, which is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as such, the entire auction process initiated by the respondent has to be set aside. 6. We have perused the order in W.P. No.24974 of 2009 dated 01-12-2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. When this Court declined to entertain the said writ petition filed by the petitioners for the very same relief sought for in this writ petition observing that against the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, statutory appeal lies to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and granting liberty to approach the same, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Thus, we do not see any ground to entertain this petition and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J January 25, 2011. _____________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J PV