HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 15147 OF 2011 Between: Dr. B. Ravindranath S/o Late Dr. Venkatraju ………….Petitioner AND State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch and one another ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an order particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing the impugned notice dated 31.3.2011 and assignment of the agricultural lands of the petitioner bearing patta Nos. 736 and in S.No. 218/1, 1A, 1B, 2,3,4,6, 221/1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 2,222, 2A, 224-4 situated in Ragampet Village, Peddapuram Mandal and his agricultural lands situated in Bhimavaram near ADB Bridge in Patta No. 548, in S.No. 491/3, 493/2, 493/3 of an extent of Ac. 3.20 cents, to the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein had availed loan facility of Rs. 981 lakhs towards working capital in the year 1989 from the first respondent-bank by mortgaging cultivating agricultural lands to a total extent of Ac. 31.85 cents as a collateral security to the above said loan. It is stated that the petitioner committed default in payment and therefore, the respondent-bank filed O.A No. 91 of 2008 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam for recovery of Rs. 11,03,91,664.89 ps in respect of cash credit facility inclusive of interest till 18.3.2008. It is also stated that pending disposal of the above O.A, the respondent-Bank has taken possession of the petitioner’s residential house and open house site under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SRFAESI Act”) without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and realised a total amount of Rs. 98,16,569/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent-Bank is going to sell the cultivating agricultural lands, which are exempted, but which are subject matter of the O.A pending adjudication before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that the account of the petitioner is transferred to the Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Company Limited (PARAS) - second respondent herein and necessary steps are to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the SRFAESI Act. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. Under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act, any aggrieved person can file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Section 17 of the Act reads as under: “Right to appeal: (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub- section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may prefer an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken. (2) Where an appeal is preferred by a borrower, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Debts Recovery Tribunal unless the borrower has deposited with the Debts Recovery Tribunal seventy five percent of the amount claimed in the notice referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 13: Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section. (3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall, as far s may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder.” As seen from the record, the petitioner herein did not discharge the liability within the time stipulated, the respondent-Bank took possession of the schedule property in question and realised the same for a total sum of Rs. 98,16,569. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court in SLP (c ) No. 10145 of 2010 dated 26th July 2010 at paragraph 27 of the judgment observed as under: “27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SRFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the above observation of the Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No. 10145 of 2010, we cannot go into merits or otherwise of the matter. However, we deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, by filing an implead petition raising all the objections. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, is directed to dispose of O.A viz.,O.A.No. 91 of 2008 filed by the respondent-Bank, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J DATE: 08.06.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.