IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17135 of 2007 Between: 1 Mohd. Shariff S/o.Noor Ahmed R/o.Dr.No.76-16-27/5B, Ekalavyanagar, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada -12. 2 Smt.Jarina Begum W/o.Mohd Shariff, R/o.Dr.No.76-16-27/5B, Ekalavyanagar, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada -12. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Authorized Officer, State Bank of Hyderabad, Patamatalanka Branch, Vijayawada -10. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the sale notice to sell the property situate at Dr.No.40-20-35, Pragathinagar, Benz Circle, Vijayawada, on 13.8.2007, as illegal and ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of Act 54 of 2002 and the rules framed thereunder, besides directing the respondent not to proceed further in pursuance of the said sale notice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 17135 OF 2007 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners who are two in number assailing the action of the respondent in issuing the sale notice in respect of the property situated at Door No. 40-20-35, Pragathinagar, Benz Circle, Vijayawada. 2. Petitioners claim to be the owners of premises bearing No. 40-20-35, Pragathinagar, Benz Circle, Vijayawada. They availed loan from State Bank of Hyderabad and offered house property as security. Consequent on their failure to discharge the loan, their account came to be declared as non-performing assets. There upon the State Bank of Hyderabad, Patamata Lanka Branch, Vijayawada initiated proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of ﬁnancial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act ( herein after referred to as ‘Securitization Act’ ) . Notice under Sub-Section 2 of Section 13 came to be issued followed by an order as provided under Sub-section 4 of Section 13. When the Authorized Oﬃcer of the State Bank of Hyderabad, Patamata Lanka Branch, Vijayawada-2nd Respondent published notice with regard to the sale of the mortgage property, the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 24-8-2007. An interim order came to be granted on 10-8-2007 while ordering notice before admission. Consequently, the sale proposed to be held on 13-8-2008 could not be held for want of bidders. 4. The respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the respondent initiated the proceedings under the Securitization Act and therefore the sale notice is in accordance with the provisions of the Securitization Act. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be given liberty to assail the orders passed by the Bank under the provisions of Securitization Act by way of an appeal before the Competent authority as provided under Section 17 of the Securitization Act. 7. Reserving the said liberty, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 9th September, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 17135 OF 2007 9th September, 2008.