THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.17385 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent-Bank in issuing demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) vide paper publication, dated 13.05.2010, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-industry obtained a loan for a sum of Rs.7,33,000/-towards term loan limit under hypothecation of raw materials, semi-finished goods and finished goods in the year 2004, and thereafter in the year 2008, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under OCC limit. Subsequently, it failed to repay the same. The petitioner states that the first respondent Bank had collected an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards interest and it increased the monthly loan instalment and that the excess calculation of instalment amount by the Bank caused loss to it. Since the several representations made by the petitioner to the first respondent-Bank for grant of further working capital for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, were not considered, it filed W.P.No.900 of 2010, wherein this Court passed an interim order directing the Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, R.R.Pet Branch, to dispose of the said representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and communicate the same to the petitioner. In compliance of the said direction, the first respondent Bank addressed a letter, dated 23.04.2010, to the petitioner stating that the said representations were already disposed of, in writing, for want of required information, which was not furnished by it and meanwhile, its accounts were classified as Non-performing assets as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and therefore, they cannot sanction any fresh loans or renew the existing limits. Subsequently, the first respondent Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act by way of paper publication, dated 13.05.2010, against which, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 3 and 4. 4. This writ petition is filed against the notice, dated 13.05.2010, issued by the first respondent Bank demanding the petitioner to pay the outstanding loan amount. The petitioner without submitting any reply to the said notice, has approached this Court. Therefore, this writ petition is premature. However, the petitioner can as well submit his reply to the demand notice issued by the first respondent Bank. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:21.07.2010 sj