IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22986 of 2008 Between: Paramata Swapna, D/o. Rama Rao, R/o. D.No. 86-3-19, Shirdi Sai Marg, Mantheni Gardens, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Indian Bank, Rep by its General Manager, Indian Bank Central Ofice, Rajaji Salai, Chennai. 2 Asst. General Manager, Indian Bank Central Ofice, Bandar Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada. 3 The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Central Ofice, Bandar Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada. 4 The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Sreeparru Branch, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. .....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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by declaring impugned notice dt. 31-7-2008 issued by the 3rd respondent (Ex.P-5) under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interst Act, 2002 as illegal and arbitrary and violative of rules and for a consequential direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein not to disturb the possession of the inmates of the petition schedule house and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No.22986 of 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by Paramata Swapna assailing the notice dated 31.7.2008 issued to Parmata Ramarao under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The petitioner is daughter of Paramata Ramarao, who availed Staﬀ Housing Loan and IND Bank Housing Loan totaling to Rs.3,00,000/- while working as Branch Manager of Challapallii Branch, Krishna District. Various other details with regard to his suspension and conviction in the criminal case are not required to be mentioned for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. It is suﬃce to say that the respondents-bank ﬁled a suit against Paramata Ramarao for recovery of the loan and obtained a decree. The respondents bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act calling upon Paramata Ramarao to pay Rs.7,62,576/- together with interest . The said notice is under challenge in the writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. S r i A.Satayanrayana, learned counsel has received notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner is presently serving sentence and therefore, notice impugned in the writ petition is required to be set-aside. Indisputably father of the petitioner raised loan and suﬀered a decree and the respondents bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Section 13(2) of the Act. The action of the respondent bank in issuing notice is in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. Petitioner has no right over the property which is oﬀered security by Paramata Ramarao for the loan availed by him. Therefore, invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner in the circumstances of the case is solely misconceived and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 22-10-2008 Stp