IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 5374 of 2009 Between: 1 V.Satti Raju S/o.Subba Raju R/o.P.P.Road Lakalakoderu , West Godavari District, AP 2 V.Eswara Raju S/o.V.Satti Raju R/o.P.P.Road Lakalakoderu , West Godavari District, AP 3 M/s.Sri Srinivasa Padmavathi Fertilisers, A Partnership concern, P.P.Road, Lankalakoderu, West Godavari District AP., rep.by its Managing partner V.Satti Raju 4 Smt.V.Parvatamma W/o.V.Satti Raju R/o.P.P.Road Lankalakoderu, West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Karur Vysya Bank, rep.by its Manager, Palakol Branch, Door No.13-1-11/9,Jetty Tank Road Palakol-534260, west Godavari District, AP 2 The Karur Vysya Bank, rep.by its Manager, Bhimavaram Branch, Door No.17-6-1, RTC Bus STand Road Bhimavaram-534201, West Godavari District, AP 3 Authorised Officer, The Karur Vysysa Bank Ltd Door No.13-1- 11/9,.Jetty Tank Road, Palakol-534260, West Godavari District AP .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings initiated by Respondents under section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Act, 2002 scheduling 26.3.2009 as the date for opening the sealed tenders vide the notice dated 24.2.2009 Hon`ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.SRINIVASA RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 5374 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) 1. The petitioners are questioning the tender notice issued by the respondents-bank, dated 24.2.2009, published in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper on 25.2.2009, proposing to sell mortgaged immovable property of the petitioners and inviting sealed tenders from the general public, which shall be filed till 2.30 P.M. on 26.3.2009. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they have availed a Goods Loan facility for an amount of Rs.22.50 lakhs as a Key Cash Credit facility and their request for settlement of the loan was rejected by the respondents-bank and the respondents have resorted to invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) and sold the mortgaged goods worth of Rs.40.00 lakhs for Rs.8.00 lakhs and they have now taken up proceedings for recovery of the balance amount by proceeding against the secured assets of the petitioners. Admittedly, questioning the said proceedings of the respondents, the petitioners preferred an application being SA No. 39 of 2006 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam which has considered the submissions of either side and on merits, rejected the same, on 28.11.2008. The present tender notice has been issued by the respondents-bank and questioning the same, this writ petition is filed. 3. It is evident from the facts narrated above that the grievance of the petitioners was already subject matter of an elaborate enquiry before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in SA No. 39 of 2006. The Debts Recovery Tribunal found that the petitioners’ account have become non-performing asset (NPA) long back and thereafter a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued on 31.10.2005 and the same was later followed by another under Section 13 (4) of the Act on 25.8.2006 informing the petitioners that the possession of A and B properties belonging to them would be taken on 6.8.2006. The Debts Recovery Tribunal found, after consideration of the entire material, that the petitioners are not able to pin point any particular irregularity in issuing the notices under Sections 13 (2) and (4) of the Act, except stating that publications were not made by the respondents-bank. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, therefore, concluded that no case is made out by the petitioners and consequently dismissed SA 39 of 2006. 4. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal has attained finality, as the petitioners have not questioned the said order by carrying any appeal against the same to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Even in the present writ petition the said order is not questioned. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners could not carry the appeal in view of the fact that they will have to deposit substantial amount, if they approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and since they could not afford the same, they have moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As mentioned above, even in the present writ petition, the said order is not questioned and this writ petition is directed against the consequential notices issued by the respondents-bank inviting sealed tenders for the purpose of selling the mortgaged assets. The action of the respondents being consequential and in conformity with the powers on the bank under Section 13 of the Act, it is for the respondents-bank to take a decision as to whether the property can be sold by calling for tenders or by public auction or otherwise. It is, however, open for the petitioners to find out a prospective buyer and approach the respondents-bank with an offer in this regard. Merely because the respondents-bank have proceeded to issue a notice calling for tenders for disposal of the property, it cannot be said that the same is irregular in view of the fact that earlier proceedings taken up by the respondents/bank were found in consonance with the provisions of the Act in SA No. 36 of 2006. In view of that, we do not see any ground to entertain this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt. 17.3.2009 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JMR} (35) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 5374 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Dt. 17.3.2009