IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH 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 : 23818 of 2008 Between: Ch. S.V. Prasad S/o. Seshachala Sarma Sri Lakshmi Agencies, R/o. MIG 5, APHB COlony, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND State Bank of India, Bhaskarapuram Branch, Machilipatnam, rep. by its Authorised Officer. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing Possession Notice dated 04.10.2008 under Section 13(4) of Securitization Act read with Rule 8(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and issue a consequential direction to the respondent not to take physical possession of the property in question pursuant to aforesaid Possession Notice dated 04.10.2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MEKA RAJASEKHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing Possession Notice dated 4.10.2008 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest) (for short “the Act”) read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 as illegal and arbitrary. This Writ Petition is not maintainable inasmuch the petitioner is questioning the legality or otherwise of the notice dated 4.10.2008 issued under Section 13(4) of the Act, against which he is having an efficacious and effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act. Without availing the said remedy he has straight away approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition. Hence, we do not see any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 26.06.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies