HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.16119 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent – bank. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the notice dated 06-7- 2009 issued by the respondent–bank under Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 stating that the petitioner failed to repay the home loan, therefore the schedule property will be sold thirty days after publication of the said notice. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner had availed home loan from the respondent bank by mortgaging the schedule property and when he committed default, the bank had issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short 'the Act') asking him to pay the amount mentioned therein, failing which the bank would take possession of the property and sell it. However, the petitioner alleges that he had not received earlier notice referred in the notice dated 06- 7-2009 and that he is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent – bank. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the bank that initially notice was sent to the petitioner on 02-2-2009 requesting to pay the entire outstanding amount and the said notice was received by him on 13-2-2009. This is not controverted by the petitioner by way of filing reply. Thereafter, the respondent bank filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act before Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the petition was ordered and thus, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for taking over possession of the property. The Advocate Commissioner had taken possession of the property and handedover the same to the bank and even then, the petitioner did not choose to pay the amount. Thereafter, paper publication was made for auction of the property. At this stage, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The aforesaid events show that the bank had complied with the procedure contemplated under the Act and the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to clear the loan, but he has not availed the same, therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner is not at all aware of the proceedings of the bank. 4. At the time of admission hearing on 11-8-2009, this Court granted liberty to the bank to proceed with auction, but not confirm the sale and it is not disputed that the petitioner has not cleared the home loan. Having regard to the fact that the bank had followed the procedure under the Act and the petitioner has remedy before the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interefere with the matter. However, this does not preclude the petitioner from making a representation to the bank seeking payment of home loan in instalments and in case representation is made, it is open to the bank to consider and decide the same. 5. Subject to above, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 28-7-2010 ____________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. bsc