IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 21790 of 2008 Between: 1 V.Rajasekhar Reddy S/o Sri.V.Dasaratha Rama R/o 26/1/48, Gayatrinagar, A.K.Nagar, Nellore 4 2 V.Kishore S/o Sri V.Sarinivasulu H.No.1-2-213, Domalguda,o Hyderabad-500 029 3 M/s Sri Sai Enterprises, Flat No.404, Srinidhi Apartments, RTC Cross Roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. rep.by M.Babu Rao, Managing Patner ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Punjab National Bank, R.P.Road Secunderabad 500 013 Rep.by its Chief Manager 2 Punjab National Bank,Circle Office, Sayeed Plaza, 2nd Floor, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500004 rep.by its Circle Head. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ order preferably in the natural of Writ of Mandamus and declare Notice dated 8-9-2008 vide Ref:CC(Hyp)87-336 issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal, contrary t law and unconstitutinal and set aside the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to give consent letter for the disposal of the Mortgaged Porperty hypothecated with the bank and pass such other orders as are deemed fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA Counsel for the Respondent : MR.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA FOR R13.10.08,VAK-1 The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-Punjab National Bank, represented by its Chief manager, Secunderabad, in issuing the notice dated 8.9.2008 as illegal, contrary and to set aside the same by directing the first respondent to give consent letter for the disposal of the mortgaged property hypothecated with the bank. Brief facts of the case are that the third petitioner-M/s Sree Sai Enterprises located at Kalasiguda, Secunderabad availed loan for an amount of Rs. 4 crores by way of Cash Credit during 2007 from the first respondent-Bank and petitioners 1 and 2 have stood as guarantors by mortgaging valuable property of their, which would amount to more than Rs. 7 Crores. The mortgaged properties are viz., open land in S.No. 4, Nallagandla Village Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District measuring 1099.56 sq.yards belonging to 1st petitioner and another situated in S.No. 4 admeasuring 400 sq.yds belonging to the second petitioner. It is stated on 15.4.2008 petitioners got a notice from the first respondent-Bank calling them to pay the amount of Rs. 4,05,34,533 within seven days from the said notice. Again the first respondent-bank has given the impugned notice on 8.9.2008 directing them to pay the entire amount within 7 days failing which, threatening to put their photographs in the leading Newspapers. Being aggrieved by the said action of the first respondent-Bank, the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned notice dated 8.09.2008 issued is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and it is not fair on the part of the respondent-Bank in threatening the petitioners to publish their firm with names and photographs in leading news papers. He also contended that action of the respondent-Bank asking the petitioners to pay the entire amount together with interest within seven days is also illegal. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that the Bank issued notice on 15.4.2008 asking the petitioners to pay the amount of Rs. 4,05,34,533/- within seven days and for that petitioners did not respond. Again the impugned notice dated 8.9.2008 was issued to pay the entire amount with interest within seven days and in order to protect the interests of the Bank, the first respondent-Bank proposed to publish dues of the firm with names and photographs of the partners and guarantors in leading news paper, as the Bank has got unqualified right to disclose or publish the names of the borrowers and its partners in case borrower commits default in repayment of loan under the Hypothecation Agreement Clause No. 35. Even to that notice also the petitioners have not given any reply and ultimately the Bank has no other alternate except to pass an order under Section 13(4) of the Act. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. As seen from the material made available before the court, it appears that the respondent-Bank issued notice dated 15.4.2008 calling upon the petitioner firm to pay an amount of Rs. 4,05,34,533/- within seven days from the said notice. As no reply was received from the petitioners again the impugned notice dated 8.9.2008 was also issued. To that also no reply was given by the petitioners. Ultimately the first respondent-Bank has no other alternate except to pass order under Section 13(4) of the Act and possession of the property was also taken by putting the property in auction. In the circumstances, when once the order is passed under Section 13(4) of the Act and since the Bank has taken possession by putting the property in auction inasmuch as interim order granted on 30.09.2008 for a period of four weeks, in favour of the petitioners is also expired long back, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned and the Writ Petition is misconceived and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR , J Dt. 24.06.2009 KA // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies