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 : 7787 of 2008 Between: M/s. Lakshmi Priya Silks and Sarees rep. by its Partner T.Venkata Ramana S/o.Late T.Subramanyam, R/o.D.No.5/270-C, KPT Street, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, rep. by Asst. General Manager, O/o. 230/2, 1st floor, 15th Cross, Sampige Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore. 2 Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Dharmavaram, rep. by its Manager (Authorised Officer), Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. .....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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the tender notice issued by the 2nd respondent published in Eenadu Anantapur edition dated 15.03.2008 proposing to sell the property bearing D.No.14/54 Old 20/B4 (New) Bramhin Street, Dharmavaram and classification of petitioner account as non-performing Asset as illegal arbitrary and in violation of provisions of Securitization Act and consequently set aside the same, and pass such other or further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.K.V.SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU FOR R2 The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the tender notice issued by the 2nd respondent bank published in Eenadu Anantapur Edition dated 15-03-2008 proposing to sell the property bearing D.No.14/54 Old 20/B4 (New) Brahmin street, Dharmavaram challenging under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short “the Act”) as being illegal, arbitrary and violative to the provisions under Section 13(2) of the Act. 2. This court while issuing notice before admission granted interim direction to the effect that the proposed sale of the above mentioned mortgaged property pursuant to the impugned notice be not finalized on a condition that the petitioner have to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on or before 25th April of 2008. The petitioner has not complied with the said interim order and hence we do not see any ground to entertain the writ petition. However, the petitioner is directed to make a representation to the bank for settlement of accounts within two weeks from the date of copy of receipt of this order and on such representation being made, the bank shall pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner. 3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ VILAS.V.AFZUL PURKAR, J June 24, 2009. NRG/DS