HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1924 OF 2011 Between: Smt Vadlamani Lakshmi Devi W/o late Suryanarayana Murthy and one another ………….Petitioners AND The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India and one another ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an order particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-Bank in seizing and sealing the apartment bearing No. T-2A and T-2B in the third floor of Surya Residency, Ramaraopet, Kakinada, East Godavari Distric, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to remove seals and hand over the possession to petitioners. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein purchased half share each in Flat No. T-2A and T-2B in the third floor of Surya Residency under two registered sale deeds dated 21.12.2009 and 23.3.2010 respectively from one Paluri Ananda Kumar S/o Rama Rao of Rajahmundry, East Godavari District represented by his General Power of Attorney holder Kovvuri Indra Reddy for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,80,000/- each and they were put in possession of the same on the same day. While so, the first respondent-Bank took possession of the schedule property on 15.3.2011 as the second respondent herein obtained loan from the first respondent by offering his flat in 2nd floor as security. For recovery of the debt due, the Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SRFAESI Act”) and after that the Bank also issued notice under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act stating that they are going to auction the mortgaged property. Aggrieved by the same, the preset Writ Petition is filed. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the seizure was affected on 15.3.2011 under the provisions of the SRFAESI Act and at any time the property may be sold by the Bank by giving notification. He also submits that a statutory appeal lies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and as the Officer is not available they are constrained to file the Present Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also perused the material made available on record. Under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act, any aggrieved person can file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Section 17 of the Act reads as under: “Right to appeal: (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may prefer an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken. (2) Where an appeal is preferred by a borrower, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Debts Recovery Tribunal unless the borrower has deposited with the Debts Recovery Tribunal seventy five percent of the amount claimed in the notice referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 13: Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section. (3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall, as far s may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder.” The Supreme Court in SLP (c ) No. 10145 of 2010 dated 26th July 2010 at paragraph 27 of the judgment observed as under: “27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SRFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the above observation of the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 10145 of 2010, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, within a period of three weeks from today. Till such time, the first respondent-Bank is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J DATE: 21.07.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.