IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD 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 : 6345 of 2003 Between: Lankapalli Constructions, a Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri L.Ramesh, S/o. L.Raghavaiah R/o. 45/3 RT, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Law, Shastri Bhavan, R.P. Road, New Delhi. 2 The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 M/s. Prudential Co-op. Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Asst. General Manager, 8-1-381, R.P.Road, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction striking down the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and striking down Section 13, 15 and 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and set aside the notice issued by the 3rd respondent in Ref.No. PCB/RP/AR/ESI/19/2002-2003 dt. 20.2.2003 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.S.N.RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No. 6345 of 2003 ORDER: (Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to strike down the provisions of Sections 13, 15 and 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) and consequentially set aside the notice issued thereunder. 2. The said issue is no more res integra as the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the said Act in a decision reported in Mardia Chemicals Limited and others Vs. Union of India and others (2004) 4 SCC 311). Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from taking any other alternative remedies that may be available to him in law. No order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt. 23.6.2009 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI}