IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 3261 of 2009 BETWEEN: M/s Amar Book Distributors Rep by G.Ramu, S/o. Late G.Veeresham, R/o. 59 B, Bansilalpet, Secunderabad. ... PETITIONER AND ING Vysya Bank Limited, 15-1-518, Siddiamber Bazaar, Hyderabad-12, Rep by its vice-President and Authorized 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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) To call for the records pertaining to the demand Notice u U/s 13(2) Dated 01.11.2003 and Dated 18-06-2004, possession notice Dated 30.10.2004 U./s 13(4) and possession notice dated 02.11.2004 U/s 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, issued by the Respondents- Bank and the Judgment dated 30.01.2009 in S.ANo.148 of 2004 held by the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and set aside; ii) To set aside the measures allegedly taken by the Respondents-Bank U/s 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 iii) to award Costs. By holding the inaction of the Respondents as bad, illegal, irrational, illogical, bad, arbitrary, discriminatory, disproportionate, void, violative of rules and Regulations and also violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.NAGENDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MR.A.SURYANARAYANA The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Petitioner questions the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in S.A.No.148 of 2004 dated 30.01.2009. 2. The securitization application S.A.No.148 of 2004 was filed by seven applicants and the first applicant therein M/s. Amar Book Distributors was represented by its Proprietor Mr. G. Amarnath whereas this writ petition has been filed by M/s. Amar Book Distributors represented by one Mr. G. Ramu, who was the third applicant in the securitization application. However, the securitization application was dismissed on merits after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the first respondent bank as the applicants could not turn up to advance their arguments in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to them. As against the impugned order the petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’). 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without hearing the applicants therein. 4. If that be so, the petitioner has got another remedy under Section 22(2) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to set aside the order passed for default of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has got two effective alternative remedies against the impugned order. In that view of the matter, we do not see any ground to admit the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedies available to him. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 19, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 21.02.2009 (B/o) DSK