IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.23773 of 2009 Between: Shaa & Krishna Aluminum Industry, represented by its managing partner Shaik Shajahan and three others. … Petitioners And Authorised Officer, State Bank of India. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.23773 of 2009 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Petitioners, who availed loan of Rs.50 lakhs from the respondent-Bank in security of the plant, machinery etc., of Shaa & Krishna Aluminium Industry – 1st petitioner herein, were served with notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, “the SARFAESI Act”) followed by a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 01.12.2008. Questioning the same the petitioners filed S.A.No.159 of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, wherein they filed I.A.No.1003 of 2008 seeking stay of all further proceedings, and the Tribunal granted stay of all further proceedings, on condition of petitioners depositing Rs.10 lakhs into the respondent Bank on or before 12.01.2009. The petitioners having failed to comply the said conditional order filed the present writ petition contending that they made a representation to the respondent-Bank for one time settlement on 05.10.2008 and on 14.10.2009, but the bank so far has not considered the said representation. Hence, sufficient direction may be given to the respondent-Bank to consider the representation so made for one time settlement and pass appropriate orders. It is nowhere averred by the petitioners that whether there existed any scheme for one-time settlement with the respondent-Bank and the conditions prescribed for it under which the petitioners are entitled for one time settlement. Further, the authorised officer is only entitled to recover the amount before issuing the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, but he cannot settle the matter under one time settlement scheme, if any. It is only the bank officials who can agree for one time settlement as per the scheme existed. In view of the same, we see no merits in the contentions advanced by the petitioners. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J) ___________________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 04.11.2009. Lmv