IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.27064 of 2011 BETWEEN Chaganti Pulla Reddy and 16 others. ... PETITIONERS AND State Bank of India, Vijayawada and six others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: G. VIDYA SAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR. DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE - R1 to R5 MR. PONNAM ASHOK GOUD - R6 GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent – bank, who has filed a vacate petition. With the consent of both the counsel, the writ petition itself is being taken up for hearing and is disposed of. 2. The respondent - bank issued a demand notice 08.09.2011 to the petitioners, who are borrowers from the State Bank of India, Tadepalli Branch and since there was no response, the respondent – bank issued public auction notice dated 22.09.2011, which is questioned in this writ petition. Petitioners, inter alia, have not disputed having taken maximum loan of Rs.10 lakhs with interest at 8% per annum and they have also not disputed that in terms of the said loan, the turmeric crop is pledged with the respondent – bank. When the demand notice was issued by the respondent – bank followed by auction notice, the petitioners have sent a legal notice to the respondent – bank requiring the bank not to sell the stock, which is kept in the pledge of the bank for a period of three months alleging that they would get better price in the market, if immediate auction is not hold, as prayed for. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this court by filing the present writ petition by making self-same prayer in the affidavit as well seeking 90 days period on the ground that by then the market will ease and petitioners will be able to pay the entire loan. 3. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 27.09.2011 granted indulgence to the petitioners and granted interim stay of further proceedings so as to avoid distress sale of the products. The respondent – bank has now filed a vacate petition and in the counter affidavit it is stated that the respondent – bank is entitled to exercise the rights as a pledgee over the stock, which is pledged, as the default committed by each of the petitioners is governed by the terms of loan. Reliance, inter alia, is placed upon clause 3 of the sanction letter, which stipulates that repayment has to be made on/before 29.04.2011 and in default, the respondent – bank will be entitled to dispose of the goods in public auction, after adjustment of all expenses. 4. Learned standing counsel for the respondents states that incidentally the market has now improved and even otherwise three months period sought for by the petitioners in the legal notice as well as in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, has since expired and as such, continuation of the stay would cause serious detriment to the respondent – bank. 5. On consideration of the submissions, as above, including the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking one more months’ time, I am of the view that the petitioners, as borrowers from the respondent – bank, cannot have any legal right to obstruct the recovery proceedings in terms of letter of sanction of loan. The respondent – bank, as pledgee, is, therefore, entitled to exercise its rights on the goods pledged, which cannot be interdicted by a Mandamus from this Court. Even otherwise, the three months period, as sought by the petitioners having already expired and even under equity, the petitioners are not entitled to any indulgence. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as misconceived. As a sequel, the interim order dated 27.09.2011 granted by this Court shall also stand vacated. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are agriculturists, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 28, 2011 DSK