IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4759 of 2006 Between: Smt.Konathala Anuradha ... PETITIONER a n d The Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Visakhapatnam … RESPONDENT ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt.Konathala Anuradha seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering her representation dated 02-03- 2006 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner has obtained housing loan of Rs.3,50,000/- on 25-08-2001 from the respondent bank on condition of liquidating her liability by way of instalments @ Rs.5,100/- per month from 25-05-2002. According to the petitioner, she has paid Rs.1,15,600/- by 24-01-2006. She was served with a notice dated 03-01-2006, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Final Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 r/w. the Enforcement Rules, 2002 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) whereunder she was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,12,653/-. The respondent took symbolic possession of the house property and brought the same to the sale on 04-01- 2006. But the sale could not be held and therefore, it was postponed to 20-03-2006. 3 According to the petitioner, she submitted representation to the respondent stating that she is liable to pay interest on the loan amount at 7.5% per annum. There being no response to her representation, she approached this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Rule nisi came to be issued on 18-03-2006. Interim order came to be granted subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- within three (3) weeks. 5. The respondent entered appearance and filed counter. The respondent also moved W.V.M.P.No.2761 of 2009 with a prayer to vacate the interim order. The respondent stated in the counter- affidavit that the petitioner having availed the housing loan failed to pay the instalments and thereby housing loan account came to be treated as non-performing asset and notice came to be issued to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Act. After following the due process of law, the property was brought to sale on 20-03- 2006. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that representation dated 02-03-2006 submitted by the husband of the petitioner has been considered and necessary reply has been issued on 03-03-2006. 6. I deem it appropriate to refer paragraph No.9 of the counter- affidavit which reads as hereunder: “In reply to para-5 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the representation dated 02-03-2006 which is signed by the petitioner’s husband addressed to our Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam with a copy to the branch was received on 2.3.2006 by the branch and our Branch has given a reply on 3.3.2006 informing that their proposal is not acceptable to the bank and the bank will proceed further to realize the amount due in their account and the said reply was received by the petitioner’s husband by acknowledging on office copy of the branch having received the letter on 3.3.2006. Therefore, it is manifest that she made a false statement in the affidavit that her representation was not answered by the bank. In fact, the petitioner did not submit any representation after receiving the demand notice under Sec.13(2) on 1.9.2005 and she made representation for one time settlement on 2.3.2006 only at the time the property was brought for sale. The copy of reply dated 3.3.2006 is filed.” 7. When the vacate stay petition came up for hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest charged by the respondent – bank is exhorbitant and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the respondent to charge interest @ 7.5 % per annum. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the interest has been charged according to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and the same has been reflected in the statement of account annexed to the counter. 11. The petitioner approached this Court on the ground that her representation dated 02-03-2006 has not been disposed of. Now, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that the representation dated 02-03-2006 has been disposed of and reply has been sent to the petitioner. The copy of the reply also has been annexed to the counter-affidavit. 12. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent failed to consider her representation dated 02-03- 2006 cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 17 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J June 30, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4759 of 2006 June 30, 2010