THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 28645 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) Questioning the notiﬁcation dated 23.09.2011 issued by the 1st respondent- Authorized Oﬃcer and Assistant General Manager, Andhra Bank, Labbipet Branch, Vijayawada, inviting sealed tenders from the general public for sale of the property belonging to the petitioner, which was mortgaged with the bank towards security for the loan obtained by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition. The petitioner contends that the respondent bank has not issued any demand notice to him nor it issued any possession notice or prior to sale notice before issuing the impugned notice, which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). Admittedly, the petitioner, questioning the earlier auction notice dated 03.06.2011 issued by the 1st respondent, has filed W.P. No.18416 of 2011 before this Court, contending that the 1st respondent has not followed the due procedure prescribed under the Act, before issuing the said notice. At the time of admission of the said writ petition, this Court has passed interim orders on 01.07.2011, granting interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice impugned therein, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.10,00,000/- within four weeks from the date of order, and subsequently, on the petition ﬁled by the petitioner, seeking extension of time to comply with the said condition, this Court has extended the time to deposit the money till 08.09.2011. But, the petitioner did not comply with the said conditional order. In view of the non-compliance of the conditional order by the petitioner and having regard to the stand taken by the 1st respondent in his counter aﬃdavit that they have followed the due procedure prescribed under the Act, as explained in his counter-aﬃdavit, this Court felt that the petitioner was not entitled to any indulgence and accordingly dismissed the said writ petition on 19.10.2011. The petitioner, having not complied with the conditional interim order passed in the earlier writ petition and having failed to prove that the earlier notice issued by the 1st respondent impugned in the said writ petition was contrary to the provisions of the Act, has again ﬁled the present writ petition with the same allegations, questioning the subsequent notice issued by the 1st respondent bank, which is not maintainable. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 27th October 2011 IBL