THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.NO.25624 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per GM,J) This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the notice dated 9-1-2008 issued by the 1st respondent-The Authorized Officer & Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Mukharampura, Karimnagar and subsequent notice dated 5-10-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent-The Authorized Officer & Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, Adilabad Branch, Adilabad, under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 4 (5) ( c ) (iii) of Security Interest (Enforcement ) Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules’) as illegal and arbitrary. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Andhra Bank on 7-11-1994 and was posted at Kosini Chinthaguda Branch, Sirpur-Kagaznagar, Adilabad District. While working at CCC Naspur Branch, he has availed staff housing loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the Bank in the year 2002 by creating an equitable mortgage over the house property to an extent of 260 square yards situated at Sy.No.117/2, vide D.No.3-129/1, Vakalapudi Village, Kakiknada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. He has availed the loan with an option to repay the same within 20 years in monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.2,500/- by way of salary deduction and thus, he has been regularly paying the same. While working at Bhainsa Branch, he has availed another Additional Housing Loan for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in 2007 and given repayment option in monthly instalments at the rte of Rs.2,200/- through salary and he has also been regularly paying the said instalments. While so, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 1-10-2008 basing on certain irregularities and subsequently, he was dismissed from service on 26-2-2010, against which he filed an appeal on 14- 4-2010 before the Assistant General Manager, HR Department, Andhra Bank, Head Office, Hyderabad and the same is still pending. Subsequently, on 9-1-2008 the 1st respondent issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act by classifying his loan accounts as Non Performing Asset (NPA) and the same was received by him. Though the EMI amount was being deducted from his salary account and was credited to the loan accounts, the 1st respondent without verifying the records in a routine manner issued the notice. Further, once the account is classified as NPA, the loan accounts will be inoperative. He approached the respondents and stated that the EMI amount was being deducted from his salary account regularly and requested to drop the notice. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued notice on 5-10-2009 under Section 13 of the Act read with Rule 4 (5) ( c ) (iii) of the Rules to deliver the possession of the house property immediately. In pursuance of the same, he submitted representations to the respondents on 4-1-2010, 12-5-2010, 14-6-2010 and 12-7-2010 requesting them to give details of the outstanding dues of the loan amount along with the statements. But the respondents failed to give any reply so far. The petitioner paid the loan amount regularly up to February,2010 and from February, 2010, the petitioner has to pay the instalments and he is ready to regularize his account, if an opportunity is given to him. Hence, this writ petition. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was sanctioned housing loan as applicable to the employees of the Bank. As per the terms of the said scheme and the terms agreed, the petitioner is not entitled to create any encumbrances or alienate the property without repaying the entire loan amount to the bank. Contrary to the scheme, the petitioner entered into an Agreement of Sale cum GPA on 25-2-2008 with Peddi Hari Purushotham. The said document evidences that the petitioner received total sale consideration of Rs.8,70,000/-. The petitioner has not obtained permission from the Bank or reported about the said sale transaction or repaid the housing loan. The petitioner having executed a registered agreement of sale cum GPA, after receiving total sale consideration, does not have any right or interest over the property i.e. property sold under AGPA dated 25.2.2008, Doc.No.618 of 2008 and mortgaged to the bank as a security for housing loan and additional housing loan amounts. The Bank filed an application under Section 14 of the Act on 22-12-2009 before the Collector to take possession of the secured asset. The District Magistrate, Kakinada also passed an order on 21-5-2010 under the provisions of the Act authorizing Tahsildar, Kakinada Rural to take possession of the security and hand over it to the Bank and the possession is yet to be taken by the Authorized Officer. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material brought on record. A perusal of the material goes to show that the petitioner obtained housing loan from the respondent- Bank. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service. Meanwhile, he sold the property and entered into an Agreement of Sale cum GPA on 25-2-2008 with Peddi Hari Purushotham, without taking consent from the Bank officials and also received sale consideration, but, failed to repay the loan amount. The respondent-Bank filed an application under Section 14 of the Act on 22-12- 2009 before the Collector to take possession of the secured asset. The District Magistrate, Kakinada also passed an order on 21-5-2010 under the provisions of the Act authorizing Tahsildar, Kakinada Rural to take possession of the security and hand over it to the Bank. On 8-10-2010,this Court while admitting the writ petition granted conditional order. But, the petitioner has not complied with the same so far. Except urging the grounds raised in the petition, the petitioner did not state anything about the compliance of the order of this Court. In view of the non-compliance of the order, we feel that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J rkk Dated: 20-6-2011