IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 27971 of 2008 BETWEEN: Sunku Ravi S/o.Sanku Venkata Subbaiah, R/o. Yenumalapalli Cross, Puttaparthy Town & Mandal, Anantapur District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Putteparthi, Rep. by Branch Manager, Puttaparthi, Anantapur District. 2 Sunka Venkata Subbaiah S/o.Sunka Venkata Swamy R/o.Enumalapalli, Palleparthi Mandal, Anantapur District. 3 Vemuleti Soma Sekhar Reddy S/o.Aswartha Reddy R/o.Yenumalapalli Village, Palleparthi Mandal, Anantapur 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus the impugned sale notice of property bearing No.D.No.5/24, Yenumalapalli Cross, Puttaparthy in Sy.No.108/4 for sale under provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in the guise of recovering the amounts due from the 2nd respondent without following procedure as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the sale notice dated 25.11.2008 and consequently to direct the 1st respondent not to sell the property bearing No.D.No.5/24, Yenumalapalli Cross, Puttaparthy in Sy.No. 108/4 under provisions of Securitization of Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is filed questioning the impugned notice dated 25.11.2008 issued by the first respondent – bank under Rule 8 (5) and (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules (for short ‘the Rules’), 2002. 2. Petitioner claims that he is the joint owner of the house property bearing D.No.5/24, Yenumalapalli Cross, Puttaparthy, Anantapur District. The debt obtained by the second respondent, father of the petitioner, from the first respondent bank and the bank obtaining decree in O.S.No.47 of 2005 before the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, against the second respondent is not disputed. 3. The first respondent – bank has, thereafter, initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’), 2002 and after issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, on finding that there was no response, the impugned proceedings under Rule 8 (5) and (6) of the Rules is issued. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. On 23.12.2008, while issuing notice on admission, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.75,000/- within a period of two weeks. 5. Counter affidavit is now filed by the first respondent – bank together with a vacate stay petition wherein it is mentioned that the said interim order has been complied with. However, out of the total due amount of Rs.2,75,834/-, further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is still due and payable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner is prepared to pay the said amount so as to liquidate the entire liability towards the first respondent – bank provided he is given a reasonable time. In the circumstances, therefore, We dispose of this writ petition permitting the petitioner to deposit the balance amount due and payable to the first respondent – bank and clear off the loan in question, by making such payment, within a period of ten (10) weeks from today and on such payment, the first respondent - bank shall not proceed further under the SARFAESI Act. It is needless to mention that in default the first respondent – bank shall be entitled to proceed further under the SARFAESI Act in pursuance of the impugned notice. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 9, 2009 DSK