IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.28068 of 2008 Between: Smt.Adusumilli Dhanalakshmi ..... PETITIONER AND Andhra Bank, Koritepadu Br., Guntur District rep.by its Authorised Officer and another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-Bank. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not handing over the keys of the premises bearing No.10-3-24 situated at Sattenapalli, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder and also the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in S.A.No.61 of 2008, dated 23.10.2008. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the premises bearing No.10-3-24 situated at Sattenapalli, Guntur District. She states that she stood as a guarantor to the loan availed by Sri Adusumilli Malleswara Rao, Proprietor of Sai Cotton Traders, who is none other than her husband, from the first respondent-Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that on 17.01.2007, the officials of the first respondent-Bank evicted her from the premises in question and got published possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed S.A.No.61 of 2008 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam inter alia contending that the respondent-Bank did not issue prior notice before initiating the provisions under Section 13(4) of the Act and that the properties mortgaged by the principal debtor is sufficient to discharge the loan amount. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, after considering the submissions on either side, through its order, dated 23.10.2008, directed the first respondent-Bank, to sell the properties of the principal debtor in the first instance and then to proceed against the guarantor’s properties. It is also observed that if the amount realized from the sale of the principal debtor’s properties is sufficient, the Bank need not proceed against the guarantor’s properties. While so, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the first respondent-Bank has notified the premises in question on three occasions fixing the sale price at high rate and as such, nobody is coming forward to purchase the same. It is also her grievance that the premises in question is kept under lock and key for the last two years and is getting spoiled, though the first respondent-Bank claims to have engaged a watch and ward staff, who is not keeping the property tidy and the expenses are debited to the loan amount. Therefore, she seeks appropriate directions in this regard. On 30.12.2008, while issuing notice before admission, this Court directed the first respondent-Bank to handover the keys of the premises in question, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, the first respondent-Bank moved W.V.M.P.No. 119 of 2009 seeking to vacate the said order and this Court, through its order, dated 08.04.2009, allowed the said application vacating the interim order granted on 30.12.2008, observing that the petitioner failed to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- as directed and is not willing to pay any amount. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.A.No.534 of 2009 which was disposed of confirming the order, dated 08.04.2009. From the material placed before this Court, it is clear that the petitioner stood as a guarantor to the loan obtained by her husband as Proprietor of Sai Cotton Traders, from the first respondent-Bank. As the principal borrower failed to repay the loan amount, the first respondent-Bank has initiated proceedings under the Act against the principal borrower and also against the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears, the first respondent got evicted the petitioner from the premises in question on 17.01.2007 and got published the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. Questioning the said action of the first respondent-Bank, the petitioner filed S.A.No.61 of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam contending that no prior notice was issued to her before initiating such proceedings. Through its order, dated 23.10.2008, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has directed the first respondent-Bank to sell the properties of the principal debtor in the first instance and then to proceed against the guarantor’s properties. Accordingly, the first respondent has initiated proceedings against the principal borrower under the Act and as the amounts realized from the properties of the principal borrower are not sufficient to meet the loan amount, it proceeded against the petitioner, who stood as a guarantor to the loan obtained by the principal borrower. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Even though this Court granted interim orders as early as on 31.12.2008, subject to payment of Rs.2,00,000/-, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity and even the writ appeal filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 08.04.2009, passed by this Court in W.V.M.P.No.119 of 2009, vacating the interim order, was disposed of confirming the said order. Furthermore, till today, she has not paid even a single pie towards discharge of the loan amount to show her bona fides. For the foregoing reasons, no exception can be taken to the action of the first respondent-Bank, as the there is no option for it except to proceed with the sale of the properties of the petitioner also. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:10.09.2009 VGB