HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO W.P.No. 746 of 2011 Date: 21-01-2011 Between G. Prabhakar ……….. Petitioner and State Bank of Hyderabad, Shapurnagar Branch, Hyderabad, and another …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO W.P.No. 746 of 2011 ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the notices, dated 14-07-2010 and 14-12-2010 issued by the second respondent under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’), as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to set aside the same. It is the case of the petitioner that he approached the first respondent-bank for obtaining the loan and the first respondent-bank took his signatures on some printed papers assuring that they will sanction the loan to him. But, subsequently, the first respondent-bank informed that the loan could not be sanctioned and they will return the signed documents to him later. While so, the petitioner received a legal notice from the respondents-bank demanding repayment of the loan amount, to which the petitioner replied that he never availed loan. Subsequently, the respondents-bank filed O.A. before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against one M/s. Skin Remedies and the petitioner, alleging that the loan granted to M/s. Skin Remedies was not repaid and the petitioner stood as guarantor, and sought for recovery of the same. The respondents-bank also issued the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4387 of 2010 before this Court and the same was allowed, however, with liberty to the respondents-bank to initiate fresh proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, the respondents-bank again issued the impugned notices, dated 14-07- 2010 and 14-12-2010 under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is neither borrower nor guarantor and there is no valid mortgage, but the respondents-bank has issued the impugned notices and is trying to take coercive steps for dispossessing the petitioner from the scheduled house, and therefore, the impugned notices are liable to be set aside inasmuch the issue is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents-bank, it is stated that one M/s. Skin Remedies approached the bank for loan and the petitioner stood as a guarantor in his personal capacity and also created equitable mortgage by depositing the original title deeds of the scheduled house. Since the matter is pending adjudication before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, we are not going into the merits or demerits of the matter. However, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner as provided under Section 17 of the SARFAECI Act. The Supreme Court also held in its recent judgments that the power of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not be exercised when there is alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAECI Act. Therefore, we permit the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, the respondents-bank shall not take any coercive steps for dispossessing the petitioner from the scheduled house. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 21-01-2011 YCR