THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16299 OF 2007 DATED: 09.08.2007 Between: Vidyanand M. Pottluri .. Petitioner And Vijaya Bank, Vijayawada Branch, Governorpet, Vijayawada, rep. by its Authorised Officer and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16299 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing the auction notice, dated 22.06.2007, inviting tenders for sale of the house bearing No.28-1-60 situated at Eluru road, Vijayawada. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned auction notice, dated 22.06.2007, shows that the property in question was mortgaged to the first respondent Bank in connection with the financial assistance availed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner failed to discharge the amounts due, the first respondent, having invoked the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Securitisation Act’), issued a demand notice, dated 22.07.2006, under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation Act followed by the possession notice, dated 27.09.2006, under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation Act. Since the petitioner failed to respond, the impugned auction notice was issued for sale of the house property, which is a secured asset. The petitioner does not dispute his liability to the first respondent Bank. However, it is alleged that the recovery proceedings are initiated in a post haste manner while the negotiations for settling the loan account are pending. It is also contended that since OA.No.119 of 2006 filed by the first respondent Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam is pending, the respondents are not justified in bringing the mortgage property to sale by invoking the provisions of the Securitisation Act. As could be seen from the material on record, SA.No.60 of 2007 filed by the petitioner is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in which, interim stay was granted subject to condition of payment of Rs.20,00,000/- before 15.06.2007. However, admittedly the petitioner could not comply with the said condition and consequently, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has dismissed his application for stay on 24.07.2007. In the circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents in proposing to sell the secured assets cannot be held to be either arbitrary or illegal. The law is also well settled that the pendency of recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not a bar to invoke the provisions of the Securitisation Act for recovery of the amounts by proceeding against the secured assets. Since, absolutely no case is made out to show that the impugned action of the respondents is in violation of any statutory provision, the Mandamus, as sought for, cannot be granted restraining the respondents from proceeding further. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ___________ (G.ROHINI,J) Dt:09.08.2007 v v