IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.22637 of 2009 Between: 1. M/s.Vensa Bio Tech Ltd., represented by its Managing Director. 2. B.Ravindranadh. 3. M.V.Ramesh Babu. … Petitioners And State Bank of India, represented by its authorized officer, S.Nanda Kumar. … Respondent. This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.22637 of 2009 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the action of the respondent-Bank in issuing the Tender Notice dated 18.09.2009 putting the immovable properties of the petitioners for open auction, as bad, arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent-Bank not to conduct any Auction which is scheduled to be held on 22.10.2009 at 3.00 p.m. at the premises of State Bank of Hyderabad, Commercial Branch, Kakinada, East Godavari District. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that the first petitioner is the company, the second petitioner is its Promoter and the third petitioner is the guarantor for the loan obtained by the first petitioner-company from the respondent-Bank. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner Company’s financial situation became dull and its accounts having become Non- Performing Accounts, the respondent-Bank invoked the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, “the SRFAESI Act”), and issued possessory notice under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed S.A.No.37 of 2007 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and on dismissal of the same the respondent-Bank took physical possession of the property on 22.05.2009. The respondent-bank has issued a tender notice dated 16.06.2009 for sale of immovable properties in open auction. Questioning the tender notice, the petitioners filed W.P.No.14649 of 2009 and this Court initially stayed the confirmation of the auction, but later dismissed the writ petition on 27.08.2009 holding that the petitioners failed to comply with the conditional order passed on 21.07.2009, for deposit of Rs.55,00,000/- within one week from that date, in spite of giving time twice to enable the petitioners to deposit the amount. Further while dismissing the said writ petition, this court extended the time for deposit of the amount of Rs.55,00,000/- as directed on 04.08.2009, upto 14.09.2009 and the respondent-Bank was granted liberty to confirm the sale in the event of failure of petitioners to deposit the said amount and it was also observed that if the petitioners would pay the amount of Rs.55,00,000/- within the time stipulated, the respondent Bank shall consider rescheduling of the loan account by granting a reasonable time to clear the loan liability in one or more than one instalments and pass appropriate orders. In spite of leniency shown towards the petitioners by this Court by extending the time in W.P.No.14649 of 2009, the petitioners failed to deposit the amount. Therefore, since the petitioners failed to deposit the amount, the respondent-Bank issued the impugned notice on 18.09.2009, to auction the property by way of sealed tenders under the SRFAESI Act, rescheduling the date of auction to today. Questioning the said auction notice, the present writ petition is filed, contending that the property, which is sought to be auctioned, is measuring 2257 sq.yds., and it will fetch more than Rs.1,10,00,000/-, but the respondent-Bank has fixed the reserve price only Rs.52,00,000/- and therefore, if the respondent-Bank fixes the reserve price at Rs.1,10,00,000/-, the petitioners have no objection to auction the said property. The petitioners having unsuccessful in challenging the possessory notice and also the earlier auction notice issued by the respondent-Bank which is the subject matter of writ petition No.14649 of 2009 filed the present writ petition only to stall the auction and prevent the Bank from realising the debt. The petitioners, if aggrieved by the reserve price fixed by the respondent-Bank in conducting the sale, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13(4) (a) of the SRFAESI Act, can always challenge the same by way of an appeal under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act, before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners, we are of the view that this is not a fit case where this Court can invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction to stall the auction proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedies available to him. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY ____________________________ JUSTICE S.GOVINDARAJULU 22.10.2009. Lmv