THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.20287 OF 2007 DATED: -01-2008 BETWEEN: 1. K.V.Srinivasarao, S/o. Nooka Raju, aged 40 years, Santoshimata Temple Street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District and another …Petitioners and The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Anakapalli Branch, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.20287 OF 2007 ORDER: This court ordered notice before admission on 27-09-2007 and granted interim order for a limited period, which is being extended from time to time. W.V.M.P.No.3382 of 2007 is filed to vacate the interim direction granted by this court. 2. Heard Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, counsel representing the writ petitioners and Sri S. Suryaprakasa Rao, learned standing counsel representing the respondents. 3. At the request of the counsel on record, the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 4. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in insisting the petitioners to repay total loan amount under loan account number 861262610000010 as illegal and arbitrary. 5. It is stated that the petitioners have availed a mortgage loan from the respondent on 17-05-2006 bearing loan account No. 861262610000010. The loan amount is Rs.7,00,000/- and the same is repayable in 84 equal monthly installments of Rs.20,510/-. It is further stated that for the said loan amount, the petitioners had given the third party security by depositing the title deeds of the property of an extent of Ac.1.00 situated at Sy.No.41/6, Kapuluppada village, Visakhapatnam District. The respondent after verifying all the documents had sanctioned the loan and calculated the amounts that has to be paid as monthly installment at Rs.20,510/- and petitioners agreed for the same and signed on all the necessary papers. It is further stated that the petitioners are paying the installments as calculated by the respondent at the rate of Rs.20,510/- per month and after paying few installments the respondent demanded the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.29,678/- per month as monthly installment. As such, there arose some differences between the petitioners and respondent and petitioners clearly stated to the respondent that they are willing to pay the installments at the rate of Rs.20,510/- per month. But the respondent did not agree for that and insisting the petitioners to pay the installments at the rate of Rs.29,678/- which is 50% excess to the initial installment amount. Then the petitioners requested the respondent to clarify the discrepancy in writing and requested them some time to pay the amounts. It is further stated that the respondent put deaf ear to the request of the petitioners and forcing them to clear the loan amount by sending collection agents. The petitioners have sustained losses in the business and at present they are not able to pay the total loan amount immediately and if the respondents gives them some breathing time, they will repay the loan amount or they are ready to pay the payments at the rate of Rs.20,510/- per month. It is submitted that the action of the respondent is nothing but illegal, arbitrary and unjust. There is no fault on the petitioners and in fact it is the fault of the respondent and its men in calculating the amount payable under monthly installments. It is also averred that the action of the respondent is not fair in sending the collection agents to the house of the petitioners, which is creating so much hard ship to the petitioners and their families. There is lot of time to repay the amount i.e. nearly 6 ½ years of time. Petitioners are ready and willing to repay the amount as agreed. Even though the petitioners are ready and willing to repay the amounts, the respondents are following illegal methods and harassing the petitioners. Hence the present writ petition. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent sworn by Sri K. Venkata Subbaiah, the branch manager of Anakapalli Branch, it is averred that Sri K.V. Srinivasa Rao and B. Kalpana jointly availed mortgage loan of 17 lakhs on 17-05-2006 repayable in 84 equal monthly installments of Rs.29,678/-. The guarantors mortgaged their property. But later it came to be known that the petitioners played fraud on the bank and the persons who executed guarantee bonds were impersonated. The petitioners cheated the respondent bank and got the loan sanctioned and disbursed. The respondent is taking steps to lodge criminal complaint and prosecute the petitioners. Sensing this, the petitioners approached this Hon’ble court and obtained interim orders by making false allegations. The petitioners never paid installments as promised by them after availing the loan. The state of petitioners that they paid installments is totally false. The allegation that the respondent was insisting to pay 50% excess to initial installment is equally false. The petitioners did not pay any installments. The officers of respondent bank tried to contact the petitioners, but they avoided meeting the officers. The registered notices sent to them were returned with endorsement that the petitioners were not available for seven days. Such is the conduct of the petitioners. There are absolutely no bonafides on the part of petitioners in approaching this Court. After repeated attempts to contact them, the respondent got issued notice under Sec.13(2) of SARFAESI Act. It was then found that the mortgaged property was already sold and was not available. Hence the respondent could not pursue the proceedings under SARFAESI Act. Thus the petitioners indulged in cheating the Bank and they came to this Court with unclean hands with false allegations. The respondent bank had not entrusted task of recovery to any recovery agent and it is false to allege that the recovery agents were harassing the petitioners. The offer of payment by the petitioners to pay if time is given is wholly false and not bonafide. The petitioners had executed documents undertaking to repay the loan and the obligation is contractual. The petitioners cannot seek writ of Mandamus prohibiting the respondent bank from recovering their dues by lawful means. 7. Specific stand had been taken in para 4 of the counter affidavit that the respondent bank had no entrusted task of recovery to any recovery agent and it is false that the recovery agents had harassed the petitioners. The offer of payment by the petitioners to pay if time is given is only false and not bonafide. 8. In the light of the specific stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit, this court is of the considered opinion that the relief prayed for in this writ petition cannot be granted by this court, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J. Dated: -01-2008 rns