IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 20082 of 2007 Between: 1 Dr. Bandi Ashok Kumar, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Prop. M/s. Sri Venkata Satya Sai Metal Suppliers, Aswani Orthopedic Hospital, D.No. 7-28-7, Viagaram Road, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dsitrict. 2 Smt. B. Santha Devi, W/o. Dr. B. Ashok Kumar, Aswani Orthopedic Hospital, D.No. 7-28-7, Viagaram Road, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dsitrict. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The South Indian Bank Ltd. Rep by its Branch Manager, Kumari Talkies Road, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 The South Indian Bank Ltd. Regional Office at 23/1, Baba Chambers, Richmond Road, Bangalore, Rep by its Chief Manager & Authorised Officer .....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 to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent bank in Ref.No. BLORE/REG/LEG/28/07-8, dt. 23- 8-2007 U/Sec.13(4) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to take possession of the secured assets owned by the petitioners to an extent of Ac. 1.59 cents of land in R.S.No. 318/1 situated in Rajahmundry, East Godavari District as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set-aside the above proceedings in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following : W.P.NO.20082 OF 2007 ORDER: (Per V.Eswaraiah, J.) Petitioners seek writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent bank in Ref.No.BLORE/REG/LEG/28/07-8, dated 23.8.2007, under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to take possession of the secured assets owned by the petitioners to an extent of Ac.1.59 cents of land in R.S.No.318/1 situated in Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioners are the borrowers. The respondent bank advanced a loan after obtaining mortgage of the property in question and for non-payment of the secured loan, notice dated 2.2.2007 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter for short referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued to the petitioners demanding to pay an amount of Rs.67,31,644/- as on 31.1.2007. The first petitioner is the principal borrower and the 2nd petitioner is the guarantor. In spite of the expiry of 60 days and after receipt of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the said amount has not been paid and therefore notice to take possession under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 23.8.2007 fixing the date for taking possession on 21.9.2007. The possession notice was affixed on 21.9.2007 after serving the same to the petitioners and possession was also accordingly taken. Thereafter the same was published under Rule 8 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Rules, 2002. At this juncture, petitioners approached this Court questioning the said proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act and the learned single Judge while issuing notice before admission granted interim stay on condition of the petitioners depositing an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- within a period of four weeks from 21.9.2007. Admittedly, the said conditional order had not been complied with. The respondent bank filed a counter. On a perusal of the counter and the record go to show that the respondent bank has followed the procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the Act. However, if there is any defect, the petitioners could have approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. Since the petitioners are not bona fide in approaching this Court, we do not see any reason to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. The interim stay stands vacated. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 12.3.2009 kpr