HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29055 OF 2010 Between: Om Prakash Mutyala S/o Late M. Ananthaiah ………….Petitioner AND State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Resolution Centre and three others ………….Respondents ORDER : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Heard both sides and at their request the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice dated 16.12.2009 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SRFAESI Act”) and the consequential order dated 14.10.2010 made in Crl. M.P.No. 3106 of 2010 of the third respondent as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner obtained housing loan facility of Rs. 14,24,000/- from the State Bank of India by mortgaging the house property bearing H.No. 2-2-1104/1/D, Rama Krishna Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad , which is repayable on monthly instalments. It is stated that due to severe health problems in the family, the petitioner could not pay the amount regularly. Therefore, the first respondent has issued notice dated 16.12.2009 under Section 13(2) of the Act and also filed a Criminal M.P.No. 3106 of 2010 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad under Section 14 of the SRFAESI Act to take possession of the mortgaged property and to deliver the same to the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has not received any notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act and the notice was not sent to his correct address and even to avail alternative remedy, the Debts Recovery Tribunal is sitting twice in fortnight and only urgent matters are taken up on those days. He also submits that if some time is granted he will repay the entire amount due to the Bank. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that the notice was served on the petitioner on 16.12.2009 and thereafter they filed Criminal M.P.No. 3106 of 2010 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and obtained orders to take possession of the mortgaged property. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. The Supreme Court in SLP © No. 10145 of 2010 dated 26th July 2010 observed as under: “It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” In view of the above judgment of the Supreme Court, this Court cannot interfere with matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the request made by the petitioner that he will pay the entire amount due to the bank if some time is provided, to meet the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- within a period of four weeks from today and the balance amount due to the Bank with interest within two weeks thereafter. Failure of any of the above conditions mentioned, the Bank is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J DATE: 24.11.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.