IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 3953 of 2009 BETWEEN: P. Vishwanath Raju S/o. late P.V.V. Satya Narayana Murthy R/o.18-85, Kamala Nagar, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 060. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Central Bank of India, Asset Recovery Cell, Regional Office First Floor, Central Bank Building, Bank Street, Hyderabad, rep. authorized Officer, Regional Manager. 2 M/s. Tirumala S.V. Electronics, represented by Sri Raj Kumar, Managing Partner, H.No.6-2-913/914, Progressive Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3 Sri M. Raj Kumar S/o.M.Mallaiah, M/s. Tirumala S.V. Electronics, H.No.6-2-913/914, Progressive Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 4 Smt.Uma W/o. Sri M. Raj Kumar, M/s. Tirumala S.V. Electronics, H.No.6-2-913/914, Progressive Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the possession notice for immovable property under Rule 8(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 dated 24.12.2008 issued by the 1st Respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 dated 24.12.2008 and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings of the first respondent bank dated 24.12.2008 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Rules framed under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’). 2. Petitioner contends that earlier, the first respondent bank had filed O.A.No.241 of 2002 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad and while the trial was under progress, the said OA was dismissed for default by DRT by order dated 29.10.2008. The petitioner’s contention is that having abandoned the said OA, the first respondent bank has now resorted to SARFAESI Act. The said ground urged in support of the writ petition is clearly unsustainable inasmuch as the secured creditor has an option to proceed either under the Central Act 51 of 1953 or the SARFAESI Act. 3. Petitioner also contends that he was never served with a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and with the result, he could not file any objections. He, therefore, seriously disputes the contents in the impugned notice that symbolic possession has been taken up of the secured asset as mentioned in the second paragraph of the said notice. 4. We feel that the said contention is not necessary to be dealt with in these proceedings inasmuch as against every action taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act relating to measures adopted for recovery of the dues, an appeal is provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. All the questions including as to whether requisite notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has been served on the petitioner or not as well as the validity of the action of the first respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act can be gone into by the appellate authority under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 5. We would, therefore, relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act to enable him to question the measures taken by the first respondent bank for recovery of dues. A liberty is also given to the petitioner to approach the DRT within a period of ten (10) days from today and on presentation of an appeal, as above, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all contentions as permissible under law as is advised. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 27, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in two days. (B/o) DSK