IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P.No.25275 of 2010 Between: Adusumilli Murali Krishna .. Petitioner AND Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited, Mumbai .. Respondent ORDER: (Per. Goda Raghuram, J) Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondent. By an order dated 6-9-2010, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.2972 of 2010, in purported exercise of the powers under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) allowed the application of the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited- respondent herein and appointed a Commissioner to take possession of the properties of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved thereby this writ petition is filed. The substantive grievance of the petitioner that no notice as required to be issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act was received by the petitioner, but, nevertheless, the respondent proceeded to file an application under Section 14 of the Act for taking possession of the petitioner’s property. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 14-06- 2011. It is clearly and categorically asserted that since the petitioner defaulted to pay the loan obtained from the ICICI Bank, he was declared a defaulter and the loan account, a non- performing asset. A notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued on 21-12-2009 to the last known address, which was returned unserved. Another notice was issued on 29-01-2010, which was also returned with an endorsement “PARTY IS SHIFTED (LEFT)”, on 02-02-2010. Thereafter the respondent company, which is a Securitisation Company, got issued a paper publication on 26-01-2010 in the Financial Express and a Telugu daily news paper “Andhra Jyothi.” The writ petitioner on receipt of the notice, sent a reply notice on 22-03-2010 which was also replied to by the respondent company on 29-03-2010. Only thereafter, the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act were initiated and the order of the Criminal Court dated 06-09-2010 was passed on the application of the answering respondent. The averments in the counter affidavit have not been controverted in any subsequent pleadings of the petitioner. As is apparent from the writ petition, the singular grievance of the petitioner is regards the violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act viz., the failure of the respondent in serving a notice on the petitioner. Since the petitioner as asserted in the counter affidavit not only received the notice, but also submitted his reply, the factual basis for the petitioner’s grievance does not subsist. There are thus no merits in the writ petition and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. But, however, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ___________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 17-06-2011 Ksn