IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 27th DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 W.P.No.697 of 2010 Between: Bolla Deepthi ….PETITIONER(S) and Branch Manager, ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Tadepalligudem Branch, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District and another …RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.697 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Petitioner, who is legal representative of the deceased guarantor of a loan secured by the 2nd respondent, filed this writ petition questioning the order of proclamation of sale issued under Rule 38 and Rule 52(2) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), in R.P.No.79 of 2006 in O.A.No.77 of 2006 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is a legal representative of the deceased guarantor, by name, Bolla Veera Kanaka Radhakrishna, and the order of proclamation of sale was issued without making her a party to the lis or without issuing any show cause notice to her or without giving an opportunity of hearing to the legal representatives. It is submitted that the proclamation of sale dated 08.11.2009 was received by her through publication in Eenadu News Paper on 07.01.2010. The proclamation of sale was issued under Rule 38 and Rule 52(2) of the Second Schedule of the Act. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that, consequent to the death of her father, she was not added as a legal representative to the lis before the Tribunal in R.P.No.79 of 2006 in O.A.No.77 of 2006. If that be the case, the petitioner is always at liberty to file her objections before the Debt Recovery Officer who issued the order of proclamation of sale and apply for setting aside the sale of immovable property on the ground of non-service of notice or other irregularity as laid down under Rule 61 of the Second Schedule of the Act within 30 days from the date of such sale and if such objections have been overruled, the petitioner may either file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or can institute a suit in a Civil Court seeking compensation under Rule 45 of the Second Schedule of the Act. In view of the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court, without availing the alternative remedies available to her, the present writ petition cannot be maintained for stalling the auction scheduled to be held on 28.01.2010. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to file her objections before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and also to take all the remedies that are available to her. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 27th January 2010 cvrk