IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO :27263 of 2009 Between: V.Naga Raju & Another ..... PETITIONERS AND The Vijaya Bank, P.G. Road Branch, Nampally, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Authorised Officer. .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 27263 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This writ petition is filed questioning the auction notice issued by the respondent-Bank, dated 11.11.2009 contending that without issuing the mandatory notice contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘Act’) the respondent-Bank straightaway issued the impugned auction notice. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Bank, it is categorically asserted that when the respondent-Bank issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 7.1.2008 calling upon the petitioners to repay the outstanding amount of Rs.22,92,508.52 ps. as on 31.12.2007, the petitioners issued a cheque bearing No.740182, dated 20.3.2009 for Rs.20,25,000/- in favour of the Bank drawn on Syndicate Bank, Malakpet Branch, Hyderabad towards repayment of the loan amount, but the said cheque was dishonoured on 26.3.2009 for want of sufficient funds. As such, the Bank filed C.C.No.673 of 2009 under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the first petitioner and the same is pending. Therefore, the Bank took possession of the secured property under Section 13(4) of the Act and published the notice in Praja Shakthi Telugu Daily newspaper and Pledge English Daily newspaper. The Bank further issued the auction sale notice in Sakshi Telugu Daily newspaper and The New Indian Express English Daily newspaper on 12.11.2009 proposing the date of auction of secured asset on 15.12.2009, but however, the said auction could not be held for want of bidders. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed the facts mentioned in the counter affidavit. The factum of petitioners issuing the cheque and facing trial in a criminal case under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments on dishonoring the said cheque has not been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The petitioners having come to the court by suppressing the material facts cannot seek for discretionary relief from this Court. Further if the petitioners are aggrieved by the action taken by the Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act or against the impugned auction notice, they will have effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act. In view of the same, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy available under law. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) _________________ (NOUSHAD ALI, J.) JANUARY 28, 2010 TSR