IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD 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.4601 of 2008 Between: Shaik Khadar Basha, S/o.Shaik Meera Saheb, Ward No.1, Edgamitta,Near C1 Office, Singarayakonda, Praksasam Dist., ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Jonnalagaddavari Veedhi, Nellore, rep by its authorized officer. 2 The Chief Manager , Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Nellore, 3 The Manager , Syndicate Bank, Singarayakonda branch, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notification proposing to auction notice dated 31-01-2008 published in Vaartha Daily dated 01-02-2008 as illegal arbitrary and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.4601 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing paper publication dated 01.02.2008 proposing to conduct auction on 05.03.2008 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner states that he is an employee working in the Railways and had obtained housing loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the third respondent-bank. As he failed to pay the instalments, notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued proposing to conduct auction on 05.03.2008. Alleging that the mortgaged property’s worth is more than the outstanding amount and there is no justification for the respondent-bank to treat the loan account of the petitioner as a non-performing asset and initiate proceedings under the Act, the petitioner filed the writ petition. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner had obtained housing loan from the respondent-bank, that he had committed default in payment of instalments and that the respondent-bank initiated proceedings under the Act. Respondent-bank filed a copy of the letter dated 02.02.2008 sent by the petitioner undertaking to clear off the outstanding loan amount before 29.02.2008 and till date, he has not repaid the same. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. While ordering notice before admission, this Court stayed the proposed the auction subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.50,000/-. Despite the petitioner giving an undertaking to the effect that he would repay the entire outstanding amount on or before 29.04.2008, he failed to pay the same, and instead, approached this Court by filing writ petition and obtained conditional stay. Though as far back as on 02.02.2008, he gave an undertaking to repay the outstanding amount, till date, no amount was paid except the amount directed to be deposited by this Court. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to deposit the entire outstanding amount within three months from today. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondent-bank. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dt:23-06-2009 usd