IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.1061 of 2009 Between: 1 Smt.Dr.T.Santha Devi W/o.Dr.Ashok Kumar R/o.D.No.7-28-7, Wygram Road, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 M/s.Sri Venkata SAtya Sai Metal Suppliers, rep. by its Proprietor Dr. Bandi Ashok Kumar, R/o.D.No.7-28-7, Wygram Road, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Punjab National Bank, represented by its Branch Manager, Rajahmundry Branch, E.G. District. 2 Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, 6-1-73, Saeed Plaza, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad-4. .....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 to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the proclamation of sale notice dt. 3.1.2009 which was served on the 1st petitioner on 9.1.2009 to sell the immovable property belonging to the 1st petitioner i.e., the secured asset to an extent of 0.50 cents of land situated in Sy.No. 318/1 of Rehamantha Nagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District by way of public auction on 2-2-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently set aside the Proclamation of sale Notice issued by the 2nd respondent dt. 3-1-2009 in the interest of justice and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.1061 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is filed by the 2nd petitioner herein who is the borrower and the 1st petitioner who is the guarantor to a loan transaction, which they have obtained from the respondent bank. Their account became NPA and hence the respondent bank issued notice under Sec.13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”), for which there was no response and thereby the respondent bank has taken further measures and issued notice under Sec.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act dated 14.10.2004 as the petitioners were fallen due of Rs.16,63,834/- . Questioning the said security measures, the petitioners filed S.A.97/2004 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. However, the said Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the said Securitisation Appeal for non-prosecution, by order dated 12.12.2008. Thereupon, the petitioners said to have been filed M.A.4/2009 for restoration of Securitisation Appeal. While the said application was pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the respondent bank issued publications in the newspapers dated 05.01.2009, proposing to hold auction of the mortgaged property on 02.02.2009. At this stage, the petitioner approached this Court by this writ petition. This Court, before admission of the writ petition, granted interim stay of auction subject to condition of the petitioners depositing Rs.10 lakhs within four weeks and further sum of Rs.10 lakhs within six weeks thereafter. We had also indicated that non- compliance of any of the conditions would result in vacation of the stay order. The writ petition thereafter was heard on 06.03.2009, 16.03.2009 and today. The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that the petitioners could not deposit the amounts, as directed under order of this Court, referred to above. The aforesaid conduct on the part of the petitioners, therefore, shows that the invocation of jurisdiction of this Court by the petitioners was not bona fide. The interim order granted earlier, therefore, stands vacated, as already indicated in the order itself. It is also evident that petitioners have neither responded to Sec.13(2) notice of the respondent bank nor have prosecuted S.A.97/2004, diligently. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is dismissed. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J _______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 26.03.2009 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Punjab National Bank, represented by its Branch Manager, Rajahmundry Branch, E.G. District. 2 Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, 6-1-73, Saeed Plaza, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad-4. 3 2. 2CCs to 4. 2CD copies