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 : 24998 of 2008 Between: J. Yadagiri S/o. J. Venkatesam R/o. H.No.10-240/3, Vasanthapuri Colony, Malkajigiri, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Authorized Officer, State Bank of Hyderabad, Malakpet Branch, Hyderabad. 2 Mohd. Azam S/o. Shaik Lateef R/o. Plot No.63, Venkateswara Nagar Colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. 3 P.Y. Kondal Rao S/o. Late Venkateswarlu R/o. Flat No.102, Srinivasa Towers, Kamalanagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.1 herein by conducting sale of schedule mentioned property on 14.11.2008 in pursuance of sale notice dated 13.10.2008 without making proper enquiry with regard to the title and occupation of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of law and procedure and adversely effecting the fundamental rights of petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: D.KANAKA SUNDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . 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 first respondent in conducting sale of the scheduled property on 14.11.2008 in pursuance of sale notice dated 13.10.2008 without making proper enquiry with regard to the title and occupation of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that challenging the sale notice dated 13.10.2008, the petitioner herein has already preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest). As the concerned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, is on leave, the petitioner preferred the present Writ Petition. Now it is stated that the concerned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal after availing leave has resumed Office. As the concerned Presiding Officer resumed office after availing leave, we declined to admit the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to pursue the matter before the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal. 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