THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W P No.19144 of 2010 Smt. G. Rajyalakshmi v. The Chief Manager, IOB, Basheerbagh, Hyd.. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W P No.19144 of 2010 Oral Order: (Per Sri GM, J) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank. The petitioner availed housing loan from the respondent-bank for an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- in the year 2003 and that the petitioner paid installments upto 2008. As the petitioner failed to pay the installments thereafter, therefore, notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( for short “the Act”), was issued calling upon to pay the due amount of Rs.11,87,474/- within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Since the borrower failed to repay the amount, the respondent-bank has issued possession notice as per section 13(4) of the Act read with Rule 8 of the said Rules on 10th May 2010. It is now well settled that if the petitioner has any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then the petitioner has to avail the remedy by filing an application under section 17 of the Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Union Bank of India V. Satyawathi Taondon and others (SLP (C) No.10145 of 2010 dated 26-6-2010 held that while dealing with the petitions involving challenging to the action taken for recovery of the public dues etcs., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person, therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. It is represented by the learned Standing counsel for the respondent-bank that the Bank has approached the Criminal Court for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and that the Advocate Commissioner was also appointed, at that stage, the present writ petition has been filed. Since the petitioner has efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, this writ petition is dismissed granting two weeks time to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Till such time, the respondent-bank is directed not to take any coercive steps in the matter. No costs. ______ GM, J ______ GC, J 11-8-2010-KK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W P No.19144 of 2010 11-8-2010