IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 3746 of 2009 Between: Akula Bharathudu (Hindu) S/o. Subba Rao D.No. 70-2-101/1, Akulavari Street, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bank of India Rep. by its Chief Manager & Authorized Officer Bhanugudi Junction Branch, Kakinada, E.G. Dist. 2 Branch Manager Bank of India Bhanugudi Junction Branch, Kakinada, E.G. Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Notice in Annexure I dated 2-12-2008 issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and Rules thereunder for auctioning the petitioner's house property situated at D.No.70-2-101/1, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and for a consequential order directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 with respect to petitioner's property. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing notice dated 2.12.2008 under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act 2002 (Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest) (for short ‘the Act’) for auctioning the petitioner’s house property situated at D.No. 7—2-101/1, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings. This Court while ordering ‘Notice before admission’ granted interim stay, which reads as under: “ Interim stay as prayed for subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 5,11,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eleven Thousand Only) within a period of four (4) weeks from today and the remaining outstanding amount within a period of four (4) weeks there after in favour of the second respondent. In default of payment of any of the said amounts, interim stay stands vacated and it is open to the respondents to proceed further for the sale of the property in question.” A reading of the above order makes it clear that if the conditional order is not complied with by the petitioner, the respondent-Bank can proceed further for the sale of the property in question under the Act. In view of the above specific direction given by this court, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 26.06.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies