HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 34505 OF 2011 Between: Ch. Umadevi W/o Mallikarjun Dev ………….Petitioner AND The Andhra Bank, Collectorate Road Branch and one another ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-Bank in issuing notice dated 11.10.2011 to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short called the “Act” henceforth) demanding the petitioner to repay the outstanding loan amount as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent has granted the SOD-RE facility in sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (for educational Institution) in the year 2010 to the second respondent upon an equitable mortgage of her house property and in addition to her there are other co-obligants, who stood as guarantee for the said loan amount. The second respondent after availing such facility has paid some instalments thereafter became defaultor and as on 30.9.2011, it has to pay a sum of Rs. 24,32,369/-. Hence, the first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner asking her to repay the amount within sixty days otherwise it will take possession of the properties, which are secured to it. Aggrieved by the same, the preset Writ Petition is filed. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent has sufficient means to pay the loan amount and the Bank instead of recovering the loan amount from the second respondent, issued notice asking her to pay the said loan amount and failing which, it will take steps for conducting auction of her residential house. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record. As the second respondent committed default in payment of loan amount, the Bank has initiated proceedings under SRFAESI Act. Be that as it may, under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act, any aggrieved person can file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Section 17 of the Act reads as under: “Right to appeal: (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may prefer an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken. (2) Where an appeal is preferred by a borrower, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Debts Recovery Tribunal unless the borrower has deposited with the Debts Recovery Tribunal seventy five percent of the amount claimed in the notice referred to in sub- section (2) of Section 13: Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section. (3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall, as far s may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder.” The Supreme Court in SLP (c ) No. 10145 of 2010 dated 26th July 2010 at paragraph 27 of the judgment observed as under: “27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SRFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the above observation of the Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No. 10145 of 2010, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO , J DATE: 29.12.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.