HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 371 OF 2010. DATED 19TH JANUARY, 2010. BETWEEN Ramesh Kumar …….Petitioner and ING Vysya Bank Ltd., rep. By Authorized Officer, Hyderabad, and, two others. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 371 OF 2010. ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) In this application ﬁled under Article 266 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the notice issued by the ﬁrst respondent under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( for brevity ‘the Act’), read with Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. According to the petitioner, his mother, Late Shanthi Devi purchased the house property bearing No.21-7-621, admeasuring 194.44 square yards situated at Kokarwadi, Hyderabad under a registered sale deed dated 12.9.1985. On her death on 14.5.1999, the property devolved on her legal heirs including the petitioner and second respondent. The petitioner issued legal notice on 9.5.2009 to all the legal heirs of the said Shanthi Devi for partition of the property and when there is no response, he ﬁled O.S.No. 1266 of 2009 in the Court of the First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad, for partition and separate possession of the property. When the said suit is pending, the petitioner received possession notice published in the Deccan Chronocile English Daily Newspaper dated 13.1.2010 issued by the ﬁrst respondent under Section 13(4) of the Act. In the said notice, it is also stated that possession of the property in question has also been taken by the ﬁrst respondent on 7.1.2010 exercising powers under Section 13(4) of the Act. It is the speciﬁc allegation of the petitioner that the third respondent has no right whatsoever to create mortgage over the property and any such mortgage if created by the third respondent is null and void and therefore, the said notice is not binding on him. From the notice dated 7.1.2010 calling upon the borrowers/guarantors and owners of the property to clear the loan amount, it is axiomatic that the husband of the late Shanthi Devi ﬁled objections to the said notice, which were considered and rejected by the respondent-bank. It is to be seen that the petitioner, if aggrieved by the measures taken by the ﬁrst respondent exercising powers under Section 13(4) of the Act, can file an appeal before the Recovery Tribunal challenging the possession notice and claim his right over the property in question. If such an appeal is ﬁled, the Debt Recovery Tribunal has to dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Tribunal can go into all the disputed questions of fact raised in this Writ Petition upon leading evidence by the parties to the lis while disposing of the appeal. Inasmuch as an alternative eﬃcacious remedy is available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy under law. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY --------------------------------- JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI DATED 19T H JANUARY, 2010. MSNR.