THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No : 28721 of 2010 O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the impugned sale notice dated 04.11.2010, issued by the 1st respondent State Bank of India, proposing to sell the property part and parcel of house bearing No. 7-7-346/1 in Survey No. 780, admeasuring 131.66 square yards and part and parcel of land to an extent of 50 sq. yards in Survey No. 780 situate at Hanamkonda, Warangal District as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the said sale notice. The 1st petitioner firm obtained loan from the respondent bank for establishing a bottle cap industry. After some time, the writ petitioners failed to repay the installments due to the bank. Therefore, the respondent bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on 05.12.2009 and subsequently, put the aforementioned property to sale. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the respondent bank has not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, before issuing the notice impugned in this Writ Petition. Hence, the writ petitioners challenged the same. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank. This Court, while issuing rule nisi on 19.11.2010, directed stay of auction of the property, on condition of the petitioners depositing half of the demanded amount within a period of six weeks from that day, but however, the writ petitioners have not complied with the said order and in turn, they sought for extension of time for depositing the amount. Therefore, on 14.02.2011, time was extended by two weeks, making it clear that in default, the respondent bank is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law against the petitioners. Today, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners again seeks time for depositing the amount. It shows lack of promptitude on the part of the writ petitioners. On 14.02.2011, when this Court made it clear that failure to comply with the order earlier passed would automatically entitle the respondent bank to proceed in accordance with law, the writ petitioners ought to have shown some diligence in complying with the said order. Therefore, we do not find any justifiable grounds to allow further time to the writ petitioners to enable them to deposit the amount. The interim stay granted by this Court on 19.11.2010 is hereby vacated. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, but however without costs. ---------------------------- (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) ---------------------- (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 23rd March 2011 ksld