IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27889 of 2008 Between: M/s. Giri Cold Storage Rep. by its Managing Partner, Mr. Mudragada Padmanabham, R/o. Kirlamputdi, East Godavari Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND The Vice President & Authorised Officer M/s. ING Vysys Bank Ltd. 26-1-4/1, Temple Street, Kakinada, East Godavari Dist. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to proceed only against the Schedule-I property of Possession notice dated 15-6-2004 issued by the Respondent i.e. All the machinery, equipment pertaining to the Cold Storage Unit located in Sy. No. 257/1, situated at Kirlampudi, East Godavari District which was valued by the Respondent Bank itself as Rs.195.90 lakhs in O.A.No. 29 of 2006 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam by taking into consideration of the Representation dated 6-12-2008 made by the petitioner for recovery of balance amount of loan of Rs. 70 lakhs by duly declaring the action of the Respondent in taking steps to proceed against all the Schedule properties of possession notice dated 15-6-2004 issued by the Respondent i.e. Schedule-II to V which belongs to the other partners/guarantors though the value of the Schedule-I property itself is more than the balance debt as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.M.NAGA RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) The only grievance which has been made by the petitioner in this writ petition is that though there are several properties which can be disposed of by the respondent-bank for recovery of the amount due and payable by the petitioner, the authorized officer of the respondent-bank is likely to sell all properties which may not be necessary to do so for the purpose of recovering the amount due and payable by the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that a representation has been made to the respondent-bank on 6th December 2008, which is appended as Ex.P-1 to this petition, with a request that Schedule-I property be disposed of first, as the said property can fetch the entire amount due and payable by the petitioner. We are sure that the said representation shall be duly considered by the authorized officer of the respondent-bank and if the averments made by the petitioner are correct, in our opinion, it would be convenient to the respondent- bank as well as the petitioner if from the sale proceeds of one property, namely, Schedule-I property the entire amount due and payable by the petitioner can be recovered. Needless to say that even according to the petitioner if the property which has been referred to in Schedule-I cannot fetch sufficient amount, it is open to the respondent-bank to dispose of other properties namely Schedule-II, III, IV, etc., in accordance with law. Subject to above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 23rd December 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J N.B: Furnish C.C. by 29.12.2008. (b/o) ajr