IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 26630 of 2007 Between: Koditla Anil Kumar, S/o. Somashekaram, Hindu, D.No. 2-149, Angadi Bazar, Parkal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Authorized Official, Parkal Branch, Parkal, Warangal District. 2 The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Parkal Branch, Parkal, Warangal District. .....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 will be pleased to to issue any Writ, order or direction particularly a Writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for conversion from the cash credit facility into term loan by permitting the petitioner to pay the loan amount in installments by considering his representation dt. 28-11-2007 by setting aside the impugned auction notice dt. 14- 11-2007 of the 1st respondent herein with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.M.PATRO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.CH.SIVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for conversion of the cash credit facility into term loan by permitting him to pay the loan amount in instalments by considering his representation dated 28.11.2007 and by setting aside the impugned auction notice dated 14.11.2007 of the first respondent. The petitioner availed the cash credit facility for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- on 30.12.2003. As the petitioner could not repay the principal amount and fell in arrears, the first respondent issued auction notice dated 14.11.2007 declaring the auction of the mortgaged property. For that, the petitioner filed a representation dated 28.11.2007 requesting the respondents to covert his cash credit facility to the term loan to be paid in monthly instalments and also to stop the auction tentatively, but he did not receive any reply till date. Hence, he preferred the present Writ Petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the respondent-Bank has sanctioned cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000/- on 30.12.2003 to the petitioner. As the petitioner as well as the guarantor failed to repay the amount due to the Bank, the account of the petitioner was classified as non-performing asset and the Bank proceeded under the SARFAESI Act (Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) by issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the Act demanding both the petitioner and the guarantor to pay the amount of Rs. 2,10,590 due as on 25.5.2007 with interest within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. As they failed to repay the amount, the Bank issued possession notice dated 29.8.2007 under the said Act. The bank also has issued notice under Rule 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 informing that the secured assets will be sold if the amount due as demanded in the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act is not paid within 30 days. As the petitioner failed to pay the amount due, the respondent- Bank issued auction notice dated 14.11.2007 fixing the date of auction on 14.12.2007. It is stated that at that time the petitioner filed the Writ Petition challenging the auction notice dated 14.11.2007. This Court while ordering notice before admission on 13.12.2007 granted interim stay of auction held on 14.12.2007 on condition of the petitioner depositing Rs. 50,000/- within six weeks. It is stated that the petitioner has not complied with the said conditional order. Be that as it may, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act. Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dt. 18.06.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD Copies