IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD Dt.10-08-2010 PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.14308 OF 2010 BETWEEN: M/s. Sujata Ribbons and Paper Converters and others …. Petitioners AND Canara Bank, represented by Its Assistant General Manager and anther …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.14308 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus seeking to set aside the auction sale notice dated 20-05-2010 issued by the respondents under the Secutirization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both sides. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners have availed credit facility to the 1st petitioner firm from the 1st respondent Bank by depositing the title deeds of the houses belonging to petitioners 3 and 4, in addition to the personal guarantees of other partners and that they have paid interest on the overdraft but failed to repay the principal amount. The 1st respondent Bank initiated proceedings by issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. Then, the petitioners filed O.A. No.76 of 2009 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Petitioners 3 and 4 also filed S.A. No.157 and by filing I.A. No.642 of 2010 therein they sought for stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the sale notice and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal. 4. From a perusal of the material placed on record, it is clear that the petitioners 1 and 2 have filed O.A. No.76 of 2009 and the petitioners 3 and 4 have filed S.A. No.157 of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, questioning the steps taken under Section 13(4) of the Act and in the said S.A., an application is made seeking for stay of all further proceedings and the same stood dismissed and that order has become final, as they have not preferred any appeal against the said order. 5. Though the petitioners have availed the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act, but failed to avail the remedy of appeal provided under Section 18 of the Act. Since the petitioners are already pursuing the matter before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, this writ petition filed for the same relief, without availing the remedies that are available to them in law, is not maintainable and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of S.A. No.157 of 2010, as expeditiously as possible. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J August 10, 2010. _______________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J KTL