HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 21339 OF 2010. DATED 9T H AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN M/s. Rajmatha Projects, rep. By its Managing Partner R.Karthik, Hyderabad …..Petitioner and Andhra Bank, Masab Tank Branch, Rep. By its Chief Manager …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 21339 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 15.7.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 1877 of 2010 by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take over the physical possession of the premises bearing H.No.1.2.375/1/A, situate at Lane No.1, St.No.6, Gagan Mahal, Hyderabad while the application in SA.No.42 of 2006 ﬁled for restoration of the said SA is pending consideration, this Writ Petition is filed. The petitioner along with one Smt. R.Jyothirmai approached the respondent-bank for Security Over Draft (SOD) to a limit of Rs.8.00 lakhs and for the said purpose, the said Jyothirmai oﬀered her property as security for repayment of the said Secured Over Draft limit. Upon executing the necessary security, the respondent bank sanctioned SOD to the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to repay the liability in accordance with the agreed terms and therefore the respondent-back classiﬁed the account as Non Performing Asset and issued demand notice dated 3.8.2004. Despite the issuance of the said notice , the petitioner failed to repay the amount in demand. However, the petitioner ﬁled Securitisation Application--SA No. 42 of 2006 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, challenging the demand notice. In the meanwhile, the respondent-bank ﬁled Crl.M.P.No. 5739 of 2007 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act seeking assistance of the Court to take physical possession of the schedule mortgaged property. The Criminal Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the said property vide order dated 26.11.2007. Challenging the same, the petitioner earlier ﬁled Writ Petition No.25923 of 2007 before this Court and the same was dismissed by order- dated 17.1.2008 with liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. As such the petitioner moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad by ﬁling IA. in SA.No. 42 of 2006 and obtained Status quo order. In view of the said order, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Criminal Court has not executed the warrant. Ultimately SA.No. 42 of 2006 came to be dismissed on 27.11.2009. Pursuant to the dismissal of the said application, the respondent-bank ﬁled Crl.M.P.No.1877 of 2010 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the property mortgaged and the Criminal Court passed an order dated 15.7.2010 appointing an Advocate Commissioner. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when the aforesaid SA. No. 42 of 2006 came up for hearing on 27.11.2009, learned Counsel representing the petitioner could not appear in the matter and therefore the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the said SA for default vide order dated 27.11.2009. It is further submitted that the petitioner ﬁled an interlocutory application to restore the said SA by setting aside the order of dismissal for default dt. 27.11.2009, and the said petition is pending consideration. In the meanwhile the respondent-bank took drastic steps for taking physical possession of the property. If the respondent-bank is taking steps to take delivery of the possession of the mortgaged property pursuant to the order of the Criminal Court dated 15.7.2010, it is for the petitioner to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal where the application ﬁled by him is pending consideration to ventilate his grievance and sought for appropriate reliefs. When the Securitisation application ﬁled by him is pending consideration before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, this Writ Petition is misconceived inasmuch as the petitioner cannot maintain parallel proceedings. Further more it is now well settled that if the petitioner has any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then he has to avail remedy by ﬁling an application under Section 17(1). The Apex Court while dealing with the similar matter in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Satyawathi Taondon and ors ( SLP (C) No.10145 of 2010, dated 26.6.2010) expressed as follows: “ ….In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenging to the action taken for recovery of the public dues etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.” In view of the foregoing discussion and the view expressed by the Apex Court, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------------------------ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED -------------------------------------------- JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH DATED 09TH AUGUST, 2010. Msnr.