IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.8449 of 2009 Between: Tangudu Krishna Rao S/o. Venkata Rao R/o. Opp. Indian Bank, Main Road, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kotabommali, Srikakulam District. 2 The Authorized Officer, rep. by S. Gopinath, the Chief Manager (Rural), Region-II, Administrative Unit, State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents for taking steps for possession and selling the schedule property in pursuant to the notice dated 22.1.2009 without notice and without following procedure under the Securitization Act is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for possession and selling the mortgaged property (Schedule- B) of the petitioner in public auction and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: . THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8449 of 2009 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Petitioner questions issuance of notice dated 22.01.2009, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’), calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.5,97,357/- within sixty days, failing which, action would be taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. The notice, however, stipulates that no sale, transfer or mortgage should be effected in respect of the secured assets. It is the case of the petitioner that after issuing the impugned notice, he had paid Rs.1,10,000/- and requested the respondent-bank to grant 10 instalments for repayment of the balance amount, but, however, the respondents are trying to take possession of the schedule property. Hence the writ petition. As the impugned notice is only a show cause notice, it is always open to the petitioner to file objections/representations to the impugned notice. If any such objections are filed, it is for the respondent-bank to consider the same and pass appropriate orders under Section 13(3A) of the Act and, thereafter, proceedings under Section 13(4) would follow. In view of the fact that an effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned notice. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. V.ESWARAIAH,J SANJAY KUMAR,J Dt:23.04.2009 usd