THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 7288 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent- Syndicate Bank, Malakpet Branch, Hyderabad, represented by its Manager, in initiating proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in respect of the petitioner’s property bearing Plot No.55 (East) in Sy.Nos.125 and 129 (part), H.No.1-1-320/55, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet Village, Ranga Reddy District, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court, on 21.03.2011, while issuing notice before admission, passed interim orders that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, for a period of one week, and thereafter, the same was extended. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit, stating that the petitioner has earlier filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 27934 of 2010, when other banks namely Federal Bank, Citi Bank and Vijaya Bank, have also threatened to take possession of the subject property, and the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents therein to issue sale certificate to the petitioner and further observing that the petitioner can approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, for appropriate relief, and as such the remedy available to the petitioner is only to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. At the hearing, the counsel for the 2nd respondent bank has brought to the notice of the Court that after this Court passed orders in the earlier writ petition as stated above, the petitioner has filed an application in SAIR No. 312 of 2010, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, against the respondents herein and other banks, and the same is still pending and hence this writ petition is not maintainable. The counsel for the petitioner admitted the factum of the petitioner filing the aforesaid application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. A perusal of the copy of the application filed by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, reveals that the grounds raised in the said application and the present writ petition are one and the same. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to pass any orders in this writ petition and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 29th August 2011 IBL