IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 22353 of 2008 Between: G. Ravi Kumar S/o. Palturam Siddi Nagar, Mushirabad, Hyd. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Authorised Officer, SBH. Stressed Assets Resolution Center 7-103/1, I Floor, Habsiguda Branch, Hyd. 2 The Branch Manager State Bank of India Habsiguda Branch, Hyd. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus, declaring the possession notice issued dt.29-2-2008 by the respondent NO.1 under rule 8 (1) & (2) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation of the pe;titioner dt.18-6-2008 for OTS. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.CH.SIVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the possession notice dated 29.2.2008 issued by the first respondent-the Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Resolution Center, under Rule 8 (1) and (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short “the Rules”) as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.6.2008 for One Time Settlement. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the owner of house bearing No. 1-4-307/30 in Plot No. 1/E, admeasuring 154 square yards. It is stated that one Mr. G. P. Srinivasulu who was a tenant in the said premises had availed a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from State Bank of Hyderabad, Habsiguda Branch, Hyderabad and on his request the petitioner stood as guarantor to the said transaction and pledged the property documents to the respondent-Bank and the said Srinivasulu has vacated the premises. While so, the respondent-Bank has issued the impugned notice dated 29-2-2008 under Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Rules, which was received by the petitioner in the second week of March 2008. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.6.2008 seeking One Time Settlement and requested the respondent-Bank to furnish the details but the respondent-Bank refused to acknowledge his representation and stated that sale notice will be issued at any time. On 29.02.2008 possession notice was issued by the Bank under Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the possession notice dated 29.2.2008 issued by the first respondent is bad under law. He also contended that the respondent-Bank without considering the representation of the petitioner dated 18.6.2008 for One Time Settlement issued possession notice dated 29.2.2008 and, therefore, the action of the respondent-Bank is illegal. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that the Bank issued notice on 1.3.2005 under Section 13(2) of the (SARFAESI) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest) Act, 2002 asking the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 6,63,591/-, which was due as on 17.2.2005 within 60 days. As the petitioner did not respond to the said notice, the respondent-Bank issued possession notice dated 29.2.2008 taking symbolic possession of the mortgaged property since the petitioner is the guarantor. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. As seen from the material made available before this court, it appears that the respondent-Bank issued notice dated 1.3.2005 under Section 13(2) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 6,63,591/- within sixty days from the date of the said notice. As no reply was received from the petitioner again the impugned possession notice dated 29.2.2008 was issued. In the circumstances, when once an order and possession notice is issued under Section 13(4) of the Act and since the Bank has taken symbolic possession on 29.2.2008 by putting the property in auction and inasmuch as there is no interim order granted in favour of the petitioners, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned and the Writ Petition misconceived and it is liable to be dismissed. More over, the possession notice was issued in the month of February 2008 and the present Writ Petition was filed in the October 2008. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent-Bank for considering One Time Settlement. On such representation being made, the respondent-bank shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR , J Dt. 24.06.2009 KA // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies