IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15981 of 2004 Between: D. Vasavambal W/o D.V. Nagamanikyam R/o Gooty Through Power Attorney Holder P. Laxminarayana S/o Venkateswarlu, R/o Gooty Gundam Street Anantapur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Financial Corporation rep its by Managing Director, Chiragalli Lane, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P. State Financial Corporation rep by its Branch Manger, Anantapur, Anantapur District 3 M/s. Shiva Shakti Retreding and Procuring Enterprises Gooty, Anantapur district, rep by its Managing Partner P.M. Srinivasulu .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction essential in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the representation dt 21.7.2004 made by the petitioner as void being illegal and Unconstitutional and consequently declare the sale notification of 2nd respondent of the properties the 3rd respondent dt 4-7-2004 void. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VEERABHADRA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.Y.N.LOHITA The Court at the stage of admission made the following : THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15981 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare that the action of the 2nd respondent, in rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 21.7.2004, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the borrower of the 1st respondent-corporation and she committed default in repayment of the amount. The 1st respondent brought the security property for sale and a sale notification was issued on 16.3.2004. The said notification was published on 4.7.2004 in Eenadu Telugu daily newspaper. As per the said sale notification, the sealed tenders will be received in the office of the 1st respondent-corporation for a period of 90 days from the date of publication of the notification and further steps would be taken, according to the rules. The petitioner is contending that the property was not so far sold and it is still in the process of conducting the sale. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay the entire amount due to the 1st respondent- corporation towards discharge of the loan, but, the 1st respondent- corporation did not accept the said proposal made by the petitioner through the representation dated 21.7.2004 and rejected the same without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to discharge the loan amount. In the light of the above submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner shall be given liberty to pay the entire loan amount towards full satisfaction of the loan due to the 1st respondent-corporation, within ten days from this date and if the property was not already sold to a third party, the 1st respondent-corporation shall accept the amount offered by the petitioner. After recording full satisfaction of the amount due to it, the 1st respondent-corporation shall stop further steps for sale of the property. If the petitioner fails to pay the amount due to the 1st respondent-corporation within the stipulated period, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further in the matter regarding sale of the property. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ 22nd September, 2004 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow ( By Order) Nn. Copies to: 1 The Managing Director, A.P. State Financial Corporation, ChiragalliLane,Hyderabad. 2 The Branch Manager, A.P. State Financial Corporation, , Anantapur,AnantapurDistrict. 3.TwoC.Dcopies.