IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14388 of 2009 Between: Vinod Neemkar & Another ..... PETITIONERS AND The Reserve Bank of India, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi & Another. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No. 14388 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This writ petition is filed questioning the possession notice issued by the 2nd respondent-Financial Institution under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘Act’), dated 8.7.2009 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the petitioners approached this Court without availing the remedy of appeal as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act. This Court by order, dated 17.7.2009 stayed the impugned proceedings subject to the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs within a period of three weeks. The said order is said to have been complied with. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit along with the vacate stay petition stating that the notice contemplated under Section 13(2) was sent to the petitioners on 15.4.2009 by registered post with acknowledgement due and the gist of the same was also published in the newspapers on 22.4.2009 and on 9.5.2009. The petitioners though received the said notice, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court alleging that no such notice has been issued them. The factum of issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act as stated in the counter affidavit has not been controverted by the petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners can approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the interim stay granted by this Court shall be in force for a period of four weeks from today or till appropriate orders are passed by the Tribunal, whichever is earlier. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) ____________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) DECEMBER 01, 2009 TSR