HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P. No.26495 OF 2009 Dated 2-9-2010 Between: Sudamalla Venkataswamy and another. …Petitioners. And: Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation, represented by its Branch Manager, Warangal Branch, Warangal. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P. No.26495 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are three in number seeking mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not taking steps to put the mortgaged plot in auction to clear the loan amount and also in not lifting the hypothecation of the vehicle bearing No.AP36U-8064 is highly arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioners are husband and wife. The husband availed a loan of Rs.5,60,000/-from from the State Finance Corporation for purchasing a tipper. One Eswaraiah and Ramesh stood as guarantors to the loan availed by the husband and they offered the plot admeasuring 506 square yards owned by them as security for loan. The husband could not clear the loan. The wife claims to have purchased the mortgaged property under an agreement of sale dated 20-7-2000. The husband and wife presented application dated 20-3-2009 to the respondent to put the mortgaged property to auction. There being no action on the part of the respondent on their representation, they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek the relief as stated supra. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 04-12-2009. The respondent entered appearance and filed counter. 4. It is stated in the counter that the property has been notified for sale in the newspapers on 26-2-2003, 3.2.2005 and 3.5.2006 but none responded to the notification. Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 vide his letter dated 8-3-2008 requested the Corporation to accord permission to sell the vehicle for Rs.2.00 lacs and to remit the same in the loan account towards the outstanding dues. Accordingly, the Corporation considered his request favourably and issued a letter on 25-3-2008 to the petitioner No.1 communicating the permission to sell the vehicle which was duly acknowledged by the petitioner No.1 on 25.3.2008. However, the petitioner No.1 did not pay the amounts as proposed by him till date. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing, with the consent of both the learned counsel, it is taken up for final disposal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners presented representation dated 20-3-2009 to the respondent to notify the sale of the property and there being no action on their part, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the property had been notified thrice and no one came forward to purchase the property. 9. Undisputedly, the 2nd petitioner has not acquired any title to the property as on this day. She is only an agreement holder. The 1st petitioner is the borrower and whereas Eswaraiah and Ramesh are the guarantors who offered their property as security for the loan availed by the 1st petitioner. When the respondent made efforts to sell the property by notifying in the newspapers on 26-2-2003, 3.2.2005 and 3.5.2006, there appears to be no response to the notification. If the 2nd petitioner is keen to purchase the property, she is always at liberty to approach the respondent and enter into negotiations. 10. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of giving the liberty to the petitioners to quote their offer to the respondent, in case they are interested in purchasing the mortgaged property. No costs. __________________________________ Justice B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date: 2-9-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P. No.26495 OF 2009 Dated 2-9-2010