IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.15093 OF 2009 Between: G.Rama Devi. … Petitioner And The District Collector and another. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.15093 of 2009 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Petitioner/borrower filed this writ petition questioning the auction held on 31.07.2009 or subsequent to the said notified date for sale of the secured asset mortgaged by the petitioner with DHFL Vysya Housing Finance Limited - the second respondent herein for securing the loan, contending that after availing the loan from the second respondent she constructed the house, but due to her sickness and as she was bedridden, she was unable to pay the monthly instalments of housing loan continuously, for which the second respondent seized the house vide Rc.No.1075/2009–D2, dated 23.06.2009 and thereafter issued a demand notice to pay Rs.9,47,350/- within 60 days. This writ petition was initially admitted on the ground that the respondent bank do not come under the definition of ‘bank’ as defined under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, “the SARFAESI Act”) and permitted the petitioner to raise additional ground, which was not pleaded by him, by filing additional affidavit. Along with W.V.M.P.No.2623 of 2009 for vacating the interim order granted by this court, the second respondent filed a counter and also a letter addressed by the petitioner in her own hand writing to the second respondent, received by it on 15th September 2008, wherein it is stated that inspite of her best efforts, she could not sell the property from her side. Hence, the second respondent can sell the property by auction and after adjusting the total outstanding loan amount out of the sale proceeds, the balance amount, if any remains, be returned to her and she is agreeable to register the property in the name of the prospective purchaser. The said fact has been suppressed by the petitioner in her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Once petitioner suppressed the material facts, she is not entitled to claim equitable relief. If that be the case petitioner is not entitled to hearing the writ petition on merits and rule nisi will have to be discharged. {See Maganlal Chaganlal (P) Ltd., v. Bombay Municipality (AIR 1975 SC 648); State of Haryana v. The Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., (1977 SC 781); Prestige Lights Ltd., v. State Bank of India (2007(8) SCC 449) and K.D.Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008 AIR SCW 6654)}. Further, the second respondent-DHFL Vysya Housing Finance Limited has been notified by the Central Government as a financial institution for the purpose of the SARFAESI Act, through notification dated 10.11.2003, which was published in Gazette of India. In view of the same, we see no merits in the writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 01.12.2009. Lmv