THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 18416 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) The petitioner states to have stood as guarantor for the loan obtained by the 2nd respondent from the 1st respondent bank and mortgaged his property. As the 2nd respondent committed default in payment of installments, the bank sought to sell the subject property in auction, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’), and issued the impugned notice dated 03.06.2011, inviting sealed tenders from the general public. 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 and thus the impugned notice, which was issued without following the procedure contemplated under the SARFAESI Act, is vitiated under law and liable to be set aside. This Court, on 01.07.2011, while admitting the writ petition, passed orders in W.P.M.P. No. 22200 of 2011, granting interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice, on condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), within a period of four weeks from that date, failing which it was made clear that the bank is at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Seeking extension of time to comply with the condition to deposit the amount stipulated in the order dated 01.07.2011, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P. No. 27460 of 2011 and this Court has granted time up to 08.09.2011 to deposit the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that they have followed the procedure as required under the Act, in that they have issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to the borrower and the guarantors including the petitioner on 13.10.2010 and as receipt of notice was not acknowledged by any of them, they have published the 13(2) notice in Andhra Prabha and Hindu newspapers on 24.12.2010, that thereafter they have taken possession of the property on 05.03.2011 as per the procedure and got published the possession notice in Hindu and Andhra Jyothi newspapers on 09.03.2011 and 06.03.2011 respectively, and then issued notice to the borrower and mortgagor under Rule 8(6) of the Act and also public notice dated 25.04.2011, fixing the date of auction as 25.05.2011. However, as no sealed tenders were received in pursuance of the said notice, they have again issued the impugned notice dated 03.06.2011, inviting sealed tenders from the general public. It is further stated that the petitioner has not complied with the conditional order passed by this Court on 01.07.2011. Today, at the hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has not complied with the conditional order dated 01.07.2011, in spite of this Court extending the time for compliance of the condition to deposit the money. In view of the averments made in the counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent, as noted above, the allegation of the petitioner that the 1st respondent, without following the due procedure as required under the Act, has issued the impugned notice, cannot be accepted. This apart, as the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order passed by this Court, we feel that he is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 19th October, 2011 IBL