IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26140 of 2010 Between: Sri D.Srinivas ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Authorised Officer, SBH, and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26140 of 2010 ORDER: (Per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in taking possession of the schedule property in pursuance of the order dated 20.09.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3031 of 2010 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.2-2-647/A/7, on Plot Nos.6 and 7 admeasuring 347 Sq. Yards equivalent to 290.09. mts in Sy.Nos.42 and 43/1, situated at Bagh Amberpet, Ward No.2, Block No.2, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The Branch Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad, Nallakunta Branch, the third respondent herein, filed O.A.No.1838 of 1999 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, for recovery of amounts due from Sree Venkateswara Traders. Though he had disputed the creation of mortgage in those proceedings, the Tribunal has allowed the said O.A. by order dated 14.06.2005. While so, the third respondent had, on 18.05.2010, issued a notice of sale of his property stating that a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘Act’), was issued by the Authorized Officer, State Bank of Hyderabad, Nallakunta banch, the second respondent herein, and a possession notice was issued on 24.09.2003. He challenged the said sale notice before the Tribunal in S.A.No.174 of 2010 and when the matter was posted for hearing on 13.08.2010, the respondents have filed a memo stating that the Bank will withdraw the possession notice dated 22.09.2003 and they shall not proceed further in the matter on the basis of possession notice dated 22.09.2003 with a liberty to proceed afresh. Recording the said statement, the Tribunal has disposed of the S.A. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the Tribunal does not grant the liberty sought by the respondents, they have not preferred any appeal and, as the time for preferring an appeal has been lapsed, the said order attained finality. While so, the officials of the respondent-Bank have visited his property on 13.10.2010 in his absence and tried to take possession of the same by producing a warrant of the Advocate Commissioner as per the impugned orders. The officials of the respondent-Bank have handed over copies of the possession notice dated 24.08.2010 and notice for sale dated 21.09.2010 to his wife who is not a borrower and is present in the premises. It is alleged that only after forcefully taking from his wife a cheque for Rs.15,00,000/- towards the alleged secured debt due by him, they left the premises. It is contended that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by relying on the erroneous submission of the respondents herein that the Tribunal after hearing both sides has set aside the possession notice dated 22.09.2003 and directed the Bank to proceed further by issuing a possession notice afresh, passed the impugned order. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record. 4. This Writ Petition is misconceived on the face of it inasmuch as from the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is clear that the petitioner has filed S.A.No.219 of 2010 before the Tribunal assailing the sale notice and obtained an interim direction wherein he was directed to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- and the time for deposit expires by 25.11.2010. It is represented that though the petitioner has informed the respondent-Bank that the matter is seized by the Tribunal and the Tribunal is going to pass orders on his application, the respondent-Bank, even before the Tribunal passed the interim direction, highhandedly took possession of the property on the date on which the interim direction to deposit Rs.5 lakhs came to be passed. When once the matter is seized by the Tribunal, it is for the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the petitioner for re-delivery of possession of the property. 5. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _________________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 08th November 2010 CVRK