IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1305 of 2008 Between: Meduri Nageswara Rao, S/o.late M.Suryanarayana Murthy, R/o.Plot No.54, Road No.3, Sri Sainagar Colony,Nagole, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1.State Bank of Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Director, Gun Foundry,Hyderabad. 2.State Bank of Hyderabad, Habsiguda Branch, Hyderabad rep.by its Branch Manger 3.Authorised Officer, State Bank of Hyderabad, Habsiguda Branch, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate order, order or direction call for the records relating to and connected with the Notice dt.24-1- 2008 issued by the 3rd respondent under Rule 8(i) of Security Interest (enforcement) Rules and quash or set aside the same as illegal, erroneous arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as proceedings under Section 13(2) and 13(4) were not in accordance with the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstiruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MEHERCHAND NOORI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.V.SIMHADRI, Standing Counsel for SBH. The Court made the following : O R D E R : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the possession notice issued by the Authorized Officer, State Bank of Hyderabad-3rd respondent under Rule 8 (i) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short, ‘the Rules). 2. The petitioner was an employee in State Bank of Hyderabad, Habsiguda Branch, Hyderabad. He raised certain loans. On noticing irregularities in availment of loans by the petitioner, criminal case was registered against him and ultimately the case ended in acquittal. The respondents 1 and 2 have taken steps for realization of the amounts due from the petitioner by taking recourse to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’). The 3rd respondent being authorized officer of the Bank issued possession notice as provided under Rule 8(i) of the Rules. The said notice is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance and various other benefits and thereby he could not pay the outstanding dues to the Bank. 5. A fact remains that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 of the Act reads as hereunder: “17. 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 authorized 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 per cent 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 as 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. Since the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act, he has to exhaust the same. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy provided under Section 17 of the Act subject to the provisions of Limitation Act. The interim suspension order granted on 28.01.2008 shall continue for a period of two weeks so as to enable the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the Act. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:12th June, 2008. cs ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gun Foundry,Hyderabad. 2.The Branch Manger, State Bank of Hyderabad, Habsiguda Branch, Hyderabad 3.Authorised Officer, State Bank of Hyderabad, Habsiguda Branch, Hyderabad. 4.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}