THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO. 20422 of 2009 08-06-2010 BETWEEN; Yarlagadda Krishnamurthy son of Seetharamaiah ...Petitioner vs. The Lakshmi Vils Bank, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.20422 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) A notice dated 18-07-2009 issued by the respondent-bank, secured creditor, purportedly under the provisions of the Securitisation an Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interes Act, 2002 (for short “ the 2002 Act”) is assailed herein. The secure creditor had extended loan and overdraft facility to the addressees in th notice dated 18-07-2009 including the petitioner. The petitioner is th proprietor of M/s Sindhu Builders and Interiors and availed a overdra facility of Rs.5 lakhs and to secure the said liability, mortgaged hi property. As there was a default in the repayment, the secured credito declared the account to be a non-performing asset and initiate proceedings under the provisions of the said Act by issuing the impugne notice dated 18-07-2009. It requires to be noticed that apart from the amount of Rs.5 lakh availed as temporary overdraft, the petitioner mortgaged his propert towards security in respect of other amounts availed from the secure creditor. The petitioner appears to have made a representation to th secured creditor seeking grant of instalments for repayment of the amount due and has filed this writ complaining that the secured creditor i proceeding further pursuant to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of th 2002 Act without considering and disposing of his representations seekin instalments. The petitioner does not plead that there was any infirmity in th determination of the loan account as a non-performing asset nor that ther was any infirmity in initiation of proceedings under the 2002 Act. The petitioner’s request addressed to the secured creditor for grant o instalments and the non consideration of such a representation is not circumstance which vitiates the initiation or continuation of proceeding under the provisions of the 2002 Act and this fact per se does not authoris interdiction of proceedings, in exercise of the powers of this court unde Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It also requires to be noticed that th respondent-secured creditor in its counter-affidavit specifically denie having received any representation from the petitioner dated 17-09-2009 alleged to have been addressed to the Managing Director of the answerin respondent. On the aforesaid analysis, no case is made out for interference. Th writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. The interim order dated 23-09-2009 stands dissolved. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 8th JUNE 2010 TSNR