IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH 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.12759 of 2007 Between: Mrs. Shameem Ali W/o Mr. Mohammed Ali R/o H. No. 12-2-824/1. Santhosh Nagar Colony, Mehidpatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Bank of India PBB, Masab Tank, rep by its Branch Manager, 2 M. Rajesh Reddy S/o Not Konwn to the petitioner Advocate Commissioner, C/o PBB< Masab Tank. .....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 may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the possession notice dated 13-06-2007 issued by respondent No.2 on behalf of respondent No.1 as illegal arbitrary, unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the possession notice dt 13-06-2007 issued by respondent No.2 on behalf of respondent No.1 and pass such other order or roders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.12759 of 2007 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) It is the case of the petitioner that she borrowed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from the 1st respondent bank by mortgaging her house property bearing Door No.12-2-824/1, Santhosh Nagar Colony, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad, in the year 2005. It is stated that she paid an amount of Rs.7,90,000/- and she has got time for repayment of the entire loan till 2010. While so, the 2nd respondent issued impugned notice, dated 13-06- 2007, directing the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the said property. It is stated that the provisions of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) have not been followed by issuing a show-cause notice, for repayment, under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. A counter has been filed stating that as the petitioner failed to pay instalments, the account of the petitioner with the Bank has become a non- performing asset. Therefore, a demand notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 12-01-2007 giving 60 days time to the petitioner to liquidate the liability. The demand was made for payment of an amount of Rs.21,75,072/- along with interest from 28-02-2006, as per the contractual rate, till realization. But, the petitioner failed to liquidate the liability within the aforesaid period of 60 days from the date of issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, a notice under Section 13(4) was issued on 10-05-2007 and the provisions of Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and Rule 8(1)(2) of SARFAESI Rules were also complied with. In addition to completing the formalities, a notice under Section 14(2) of the SARFAESI Act was also affixed on the building. Thereafter, the 1st respondent bank sought the assistance of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for taking physical possession of the property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the learned Magistrate appointed the 2nd respondent herein as an Advocate Commissioner, who issued the impugned notice, dated 13-06-2007. Thus, it is stated that the 1st respondent bank has followed the provisions of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and there is no non-compliance of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The averments in the counter cannot be controverted. However, if there is any non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has got an effective remedy of appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any infirmity or non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, warranting interference with the aforesaid action of the respondents. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 13-03-2009 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}