IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.7975 of 2009 Between: 1. M/s.Bhargavi Modern Rice Mill, Achanta, represented by its Managing Partner G.Suryaprakash Rao. 2. G.Suryaprakash Rao. … Petitioners And 1. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Registrar. 2. State Bank of India, Palakole branch and 8 others. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.7975 of 2009 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in O.A.No.39 of 2007 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, dated 08.12.2008 and to quash the same being illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that the 2nd petitioner is the Managing Partner of the 1st petitioner firm. The petitioners for the purpose of business obtained a cash credit loan of Rs.30 lakhs and term loan of Rs.30 lakhs from the 2nd respondent-Bank, however, committed default in repayment of the same and thereby the accounts have been declared as Non-performing Accounts. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent-Bank sold the property of the petitioners, which was mortgaged with it in a public auction for a sum of Rs.41,00,000/-. Later, the 2nd respondent-Bank filed O.A.No.39 of 2007 for recovery of the balance amount of Rs.35,63,278.77 ps. from the petitioners and also for sale of A-schedule property. The same was contested by the petitioners contending that as per the Government records, the value of the property is Rs.65,00,000/-, but it was sold for a lesser price of Rs.41,00,000/- and therefore, there is no due on the part of the petitioners. Rejecting the said contention the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the O.A.No.39 of 2007, by its impugned order dated 08.12.2008. Questioning the correctness of the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. It is not in dispute that against any order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, an appeal lies to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in view of the statutory right of appeal provided under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In view of the above, since the alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners and inasmuch as disputed questions of fact are involved, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue with the Bank for one time settlement. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY _________________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 26.10.2009. Lmv