THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 30281 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) The petitioner, who stood as a guarantor for the loan obtained by one M/s. Sri Laxmi Car Needs represented by its Partner Mrs. P. Prameela Rani from the respondent bank, and mortgaged his property with the bank, filed the present writ petition, contending that the respondent bank is proceeding against his property for recovery of the loan amount and it had taken possession of the subject property belonging to him, without issuing written notice as required under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). The counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent bank has followed the due procedure as required under the Act, in that they have issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, calling upon the borrower and mortgagors to repay the due amount, and on their failure to repay, issued possession notice dated 24.10.2011, informing that they have taken over the possession of the subject property, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13(4) of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. He further submits that pursuant to the possession notice, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.11.2011 to the respondent, requesting to grant one or two months time to clear off the entire loan amount, and having submitted such representation to the bank, he filed the present writ petition alleging non-compliance of the due procedure by the bank, which is not proper. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the respondent has produced copies of the possession notice dated 24.10.2011 and the representation dated 09.11.2011 submitted by the petitioner to the bank. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent. A perusal of the copy of the possession notice dated 24.10.2011, produced by the counsel for the respondent, would reveal that one Saritha, sister of the petitioner, has acknowledged the receipt of the notice. Subsequent to issuance of possession notice, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.11.2011, which was received by the respondent bank on 12.11.2011, as is evident from the copy of the representation produced by the counsel for the respondent, requesting the bank to grant some more time to enable him clear off the entire loan. The petitioner, having submitted such representation to the bank, has filed the present writ petition, stating that the respondent bank has not followed the due procedure in taking over possession of his property. If it is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent bank has not followed the due procedure, the remedy available to him is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, and he is at liberty to avail the same, if he so chooses. We see no reasons to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfering with the process initiated by the bank for recovery of loan amount due and payable by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 30th November 2011 IBL