IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 7139 of 2008 Between: K. Venkata Hanumantha Rao S/o. Late Lakshmaiah R/o. D.No.30-20-1/8, Kotilingam Street, Sitaramapuram, Vijayawada- 04. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, Rep. by its Collection Manager, D.No.4-1-48/2, Valluri Complex, Vijayawada. 2 Authorised Officer, H.D.F.C. Bank, Retail Asset Division, D.No.4-1-48/2, Valluri Complex, M.G. Road, Vijayawada. 3 K. Pitchamma W/o. Late Lakshmaiah R/o. D.No.30-20-1/8, Kotilingam Street, Sitaramapuram, Vijayawada-04. 4 Vinayaka Traders, R/o. D.No.30-22-109, Inavolu Vari Street, Sitaramapuram, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS 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 particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 1st Respondent in obtaining warrant dated 11.03.2008 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in Criminal M.P.No.295 of 2008 U/s14 of Securitization Act as illegal, arbitrary and consequently seeking a direction to set aside the impugned proceedings and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V.Raghu Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following O R D E R: The writ petition has been instituted calling in question the orders passed on 11th March 2008 in Crl.M.P.No. 295 of 2008, filed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’). The grievance of the petitioner is that if a reasonable time had been accorded to him by the respondent-bank, he would have liquidated the entire liability and that if an opportunity had been provided to him by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada before entertaining the application moved before him, under Section 14 of the aforementioned Act, he would have demonstrated his bona fides by depositing substantial amount of the loan outstanding forthwith and also would have submitted proposals to the respondent- bank to liquidate the balance liability as well. Since the respondent- bank is also interested in securing the outstanding liability of the petitioner to be liquidated, it would be appropriate to provide the writ petitioner an opportunity to demonstrate his bona fides and simultaneously preserve and protect the interest of the respondent- bank as well. If the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on or before 9th May 2008, to the credit of the loan account maintained with the respondent-bank and also submits a proposal to the respondent - bank to liquidate the balance liability, within a further period of four months thereafter i.e. on or before 8th September 2008, either in lump sum or in installments, the respondent-bank may consider permitting the petitioner to liquidate the entire liability. Subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on or before 8th May 2008, no further action be initiated or taken by the 1st respondent-bank, pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada on 11th March 2008. If the petitioner commits any default either in depositing the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- or fails to submit proposal to liquidate the balance liability, to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent – bank, it is open to the bank to proceed further in the matter from the stage where it had now been stopped, without any further reference to this Court. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. ---------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 3rd April 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}