IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH 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 : 19320 of 2008 Between: M.Sathyavathi W/o.M.R.Gopala Raju R/o.H.No.3-190, Venkatnaryana Nagar, Palangi Village, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND Union Bank of India, Tanuku Branch, Door No.25/69, Velpur Road, Tanuku, West Godavari District, Represented by its Authorised 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 will be pleased to to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondent in issuing a notice dated 29.1.2008 in ref No. CRLD: SN : 244(A) and dated 30.4.2008 in ADV: CM : 126 through which threatening to take over the possession of the residential house of the petitioner bearing No. 3-190, situated at Venktanarayana Nagar, Palangi village, West Godavari District, without passing any orders considering the representation of the petitioner dated 22.7.2008 is arbitrary, illegal, null and void and the same may be liable to be set aside. Consequently direct the respondent Bank not to take any action against the petitioner residential house of the petitioner bearing No. 3-190, situated at Venktanarayana Nagar, Palangi village, West Godavari District, until appropriate orders passed by the respondent considering the representation of the petitioner dated 22.7.2008 and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.G.VASANTHA RAYUDU The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal available under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) and therefore, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive and the same has become infructuous. In view of the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 30.06.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies