IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18184 of 2008 Between: Gandham Veeraju S/o. G. Ravi Kumar R/o. MIG-83, Phase-II KAP VUDA Colony, Vizianagaram Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Bank of Hyderabad L.T.B. Road Branch, Vizianagaram, Rep. by its Chief Manager. 2 The Authorised Officer State Bank of Hyderabad, Region-I Zonal Office, Vishkhapatnam,. .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to receive the overdue amounts with regard to the account Nos. 62023299116, 62026488167, 62030349817, 62032277099, 6203262471, 62023299138 dt. 26-6-2008 and regularize the same and consequently declare the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to regularize the accounts mentioned herein above as arbitrary illegal, unjust and against to the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 apart from being violative of Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.BHUVAN SUNDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 18184 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by Gandham Veeraju, with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to receive the over due amounts in account Nos. 62023299116, 62026488167, 62032277099, 6203262471 and 62023299138 and regularize the same and consequently declare the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to regularize the accounts as arbitrary and illegal and against the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. The petitioner established a Tractor show room at Vizianagaram under the name and style Sri Sai Dharani Agencies. He availed loan from the 1st respondent Bank under various facilities. He offered his immovable properties as security for the loan by deposit of title deeds. He fell ill and consequently he failed to pay the installments from March, 2008 to May, 2008. The 1st respondent treated the accounts of the petitioner as non-performing assets and initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as ‘the Security Interest Act, 2002). A notice under Section13 (2) of the Securitization Act came to be issued to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the total amount within sixty days from the date of notice. The petitioner issued reply notice dated 26-7-2008 through his counsel wherein he stated that he failed to pay the installments due to ill health. 1st respondent did not accept the reasons stated by the petitioner and thereby communicated his response to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner with a prayer stated supra. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material papers placed on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India and contends that the representation made by the petitioner has not been considered objectively and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the 1st respondent to receive the overdue amounts and regularize the accounts. 5. Proceedings under Securitization Act have been commenced treating account as non-performing assets. The petitioners’ accounts have been treated as non- performing assets and proceedings came to be initiated under Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner pleaded his ill health as the reasons for non-payment of installments. The reason offered by the petitioner came to be not accepted by the 1st respondent and accordingly, communication was sent to him. Basing on the communication, it is impermissible to the petitioner to approach this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per the provisions under the Act, the borrower is not be entitled to challenge the reasons communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons, unless his right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal is provided under Section17 of the Act matures on any measure being taken under Section13 (4) of the Act. 6. Therefore the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived. Accordingly, the same is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 21st August, 2008. Note: C.C. in three days B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 18184 OF 2008 21st August, 2008.