THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.1567 of 2011 Date: 15.02.2011 Between: Smt. Divyasree Deshpande .. Petitioner AND The Authorized Officer, State Bank of Hyderabad, S.A.R.C., B-27, APIIC IND. Park, Moulali, Hyderabad-40, and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.1567 of 2011 ORDER (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed): The writ petition is filed seeking to issue an order, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent-State Bank of Hyderabad in issuing notice dated 25.01.2011 for conducting auction of the petitioner’s house property bearing Plot No.49 admeasuring 167 square yards situated in Survey No.130, Bodduppal Village and Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent- Bank. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she entered into an Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with the second respondent on 15.11.2007 for purchase of the semi-finished house plot No.49 for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,46,000/-. After completion of the registration, the petitioner became absolute owner and possessor in respect of the said property, through registered document No.12732 of 2007, dated 16.11.2007. Later, the first respondent-Bank got issued a legal notice dated 01.02.2010 to the petitioner, which was received by her on 16.10.2010 stating that the house property was mortgaged before the bank by the second respondent by availing a loan. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that she has nothing to do with the alleged debts to the bank taken by the second respondent and she is the third party to the said debts. Therefore, without issuing any notice to the petitioner under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the first respondent-bank ought not to have issued notice dated 25.01.2011 for auctioning her house property. Hence, this writ petition. 5. According to the petitioner, she is the third party to the debts taken by the second respondent and there is no fault on her part. Since the petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, without going into the merits or otherwise of the matter, we are inclined to direct the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal concerned for appropriate relief and adjudication thereof. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal concerned by filing appropriate application and on filing of such application, the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders on that application, after giving an opportunity to both sides, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, till such time, status quo as on today shall be maintained by both the parties. However, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ________________ K.G. Shankar, J Date: 15.02.2011 Note: Issue CC in two days. (B/o.) Isn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.1567 of 2011 (Order of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Date: 15.02.2011