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 : 19196 of 2008 Between: Sri Raja Rajeswari Traders Binny Rice Mill, D.No. 6-18E, Nagaram Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District, Rep. by its Partner Sri Malladi Raji Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager / Authorized Officer, Hanamkonda Branch, Ashoka Theatre Complex, Hanamkonda, Warangal district. 2 The Collector and District Magistrate, Warangal. 3 The Thasildar, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the first Respondent in approaching the second Respondent under Sec. 14 of the Securitization Act and the consequent Proceedings No. A7/2706/2008, Dt. 16.5.2008 of the Second Respondent ordering taking over the possession of the properties of the petitioner firm and thereby taking possession under Panchanama Dt. 30.6.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Securitization Act and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and further direct the Respondents to deliver the possession of the property to the petitioner firm and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-State Bank of India, represented by Authorized Officer, Hanamkonda Branch in approaching the second respondent –The Collector and District Magistrate, Warangal under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) (Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002) and the consequent proceedings dated 16.5.2008 of the second respondent ordering taking over the possession of the properties of the petitioner firm and thereby taking possession under Panchanama dated 30.6.2008 as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner availed working capital of Rs. 12 lakhs in the year 2002 from the first respondent Bank under the head “Cash Credit Account”. It is stated that the first respondent-Bank had initially issued a notice dated 2.6.2007 under Section 13(2) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 12,65,724/- as on 2.6.2007 within 60 days from the date of notice and failing which action would be initiated under Section 13(4) of the Act. It is also stated that on 30.6.2008 the officials of the first respondent have come to the petitioner firm and seized the property by way of conducting panchanama dated 30.6.2008 pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 16.5.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the notice dated 2.8.2007 alleged to have been issued under Section 13(2) of the Act does not have any legal sanctity. He also submits that since there is no Demand Notice, all the subsequent proceedings viz., the possession Notice dated 23.11.2007, the proceedings of the second respondent dated 16.5.2008 are vitiated and the first respondent Bank does not have power or authority to seize the property. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. As seen from the material made available before the court, it appears that the respondent-Bank issued notice dated 2.6.2007 under Section 13(2) of the Act calling upon the petitioner firm to pay an amount of Rs. 12,65,724/- as on 2.6.2007 within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice and failure on its part, action would be initiated under Section 13(4) of the Act. As the petitioner did not respond the notice by way of filing a reply, the respondent bank has no other alternate except to issue a possession notice dated 23.11.2007 and seized the property by way of conducting panchanama dated 30.6.2008 pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 16.5.2008. Be that as it may, the possession was taken on 30.6.2008 by the respondent-Bank and the Writ Petition was filed on 1.9.2008 and no interim order was passed by this Court. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Writ Petition fails and the same is liable to the dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 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