HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 7585 OF 2011 Between: Kothapalli Sudhakar S/o Sabhapathi and one another ………….Petitioners AND Allahabad Bank represented by its Chief Manager and Authorized Officer Zonal Office, Himayathnagar, Hyderabd and one another ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an order particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-Bank in issuing the auction notice dated 14.2.2011, to auction the mortgaged property published in Deccan Chronicle dated 20.02.2011 scheduled to be held on 23.3.2011 as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are wife and husband and they have availed loan of Rs. 14,00,000/- from the second respondent- Bank by mortgaging their immovable property. The said loan is repayable in 180 equal instalments and each instalment is for Rs. 16,400/-. It is stated that due to personal and family problems, they could not repay the loan amount, therefore, the account of the petitioners was classified as ‘Non Performing Asset” and the Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SRFAESI Act”) on 25.10.2010 and after that the Bank also issued notice under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act stating that they are going to auction the mortgaged property. Aggrieved by the same, the preset Writ Petition is filed. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the amount shown in the impugned auction notice is not correct and it requires thorough verification. He also submits that a statutory appeal lies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and as the Officer is not available they are constrained to file the Present Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also perused the material made available on record. As the petitioners committed default in payment of loan amount, the Bank has initiated proceedings under SRFAESI Act. Be that as it may, under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act, any aggrieved person can file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Section 17 of the Act reads as under: “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 authorised 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 percent 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 s 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.” The Supreme Court in SLP (c ) No. 10145 of 2010 dated 26th July 2010 at paragraph 27 of the judgment observed as under: “27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SRFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the above observation of the Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No. 10145 of 2010, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J DATE: 22.03.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.