THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P. No. 27824 of 2011 Oral order: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the auction notice dated 30.08.2011 issued by respondent Nos. 1 to 4-State Bank of India, published in Eenadu dated 04.09.2011 as also the possession notices dated 11.01.2011, as being illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’) and consequently to quash the same. The petitioner had taken cash credit loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from respondent No.3-Bank in the year 2002. Thereafter, he along with his wife, states that he along with his wife, namely respondent No.5. had taken housing loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from respondent No.3-Bank, by mortgaging immovable property. Having taken the loan, the petitioner states that he and his wife paid the instalments regularly. That when he could not pay the instalments, respondent No.3 issued demand notice dated 18.03.2010 calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount. That when he did not pay the same, respondent No.3 issued possession notice dated 11.01.2011 calling upon him to pay the amount mentioned therein. As he did not pay the amount mentioned therein, respondent No.3 issued the impugned auction notice dated 30.08.2011 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, proposing to put the mortgaged property to public auction. The learned counsel for the petitioner though contended that respondent No.3 without issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, has directly issued the impugned auction notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the fact remains, the same is disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4- Bank, and it is contended by him that notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the petitioner, and to prove the same, he produced xerox copy of the notice dated 18.03.2010, which shows that the same was acknowledged by respondent No.5, namely the wife of the petitioner. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the entire outstanding loan amount and sought time. She submitted and undertook that the petitioner will pay half of the outstanding amount within a period of four weeks from today and the balance outstanding amount within a period of six weeks thereafter and prayed for indulgence of the Court. Since the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the outstanding loan amount, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 to 4- Bank agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: There shall be stay of auction proposed to be conducted pursuant to the impugned auction subject to the petitioner paying half of the outstanding amount within a period of four weeks to respondent No.3-Bank, and the balance outstanding amount within a period of six weeks thereafter. If the petitioner fails to pay any of the instalments, respondent Nos. 1 to 3-Bank are at liberty to proceed further in the matter. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 11th October, 2011 KSR