THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.21615 OF 2010 DATED: 31-08-2010 Between: Sayeed Bin Abdullah & 7 others ..... PETITIONERS AND Andhra Bank (A Govt.of India undertaking), SARM Branch, Sultan Bazar, Rep.by its Authorised Officer, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order, dated 15-07-2010, in Crl.M.P.No.1536 of 2010 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein the application filed by the respondent bank under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘Act’), was allowed appointing an Advocate-Commissioner to take possession of the mortgaged properties and hand over the same to the complainant. 2. Even according to the petitioners, notice under section 13(2) of the Act was issued to the mortgager and thereafter, possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was also issued calling upon them to hand over the possession of the properties. Since the petitioners disputed the creation of equitable mortgage for availing loan, the respondent bank filed O.A.No.190 of 2005 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad for recovery of the amount alleging that the mother of the petitioners-Noor Begum stood as guarantor to the amount due and created equitable mortgage in favour of the respondent. Pending disposal of the said O.P., the mortgager-Noor Begum died and therefore respondent filed I.A.No.1009 of 2008 and the same was dismissed, against which the respondent bank carried the matter in appeal and pending the appeal, they cannot forcibly take possession of the property. 3. Against any order passed under Section 13(4) of the Act, appeal lies to the appellate Tribunal under section 17 of the Act. 4. No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate done in pursuance of Section 14 of the Act shall be called in question in any Court or before any authority. Petitioner, without availing the remedy of appeal provided for against the possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act, cannot maintain the present Writ Petition. Inasmuch as the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act has already been issued, the remedy of the petitioners, if any, is only to avail the appellate remedy as held by this Bench in W.P.No.21425 of 2010. 5. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to avail the appellate remedy available to them under Section 17 of the Act. All the contentions raised are left open. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 31st Augut, 2010. Tsy