IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND 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 : 1747 of 2008 Between: N. Satish Babu S/o.N.G. Rao Nellore Town, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND State Bank of India, Rep. by its Manager, Muthukur, Nellore District. .....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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the notice dt. 19-11-2007 issued by the respondent under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the notice dated 19-11-2007 issued by the respondent-State Bank of India, Muthukur Branch, Nellore District, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short “the Act”) as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same. 2. Facts stated are : The petitioner herein availed financial loan from the respondent bank to the tune of Rs.4,49,544/- (Rupees four lakhs forty nine thousand five hundred and forty four only) for the purpose of purchasing plot in Muthukur, Nellore District and created mortgage of the said plot in favour of the bank by way of deposit of Title deed, as security. It is stated that the petitioner has become irregular in repaying the loan availed by him and therefore the debt has been classified as Non Performing Asset and under those circumstances, the respondent bank has issued the above notice calling upon the petitioner to discharge the loan in full, within sixty days from the date of notice. 3. When the matter came up before the learned single Judge, by order dated 01-02-2008, interim stay was granted subject to the condition the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). Thereafter, the matter is listed before this court as the proceedings are initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 4. Though several contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when once the proceedings are initiated under the Act, this court cannot interdict the said proceedings in as much as the impugned order is only a statutory notice and there is no final orders passed. 5. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution and interdict with the notice, unless the said notice is issued by incompetent authority. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from making a representation to the respondent and also filing explanation to the notice, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. In the result, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ VILAS.V.AFZUL PURKAR, J June 22, 2009. NRG/DS