IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2397 of 2007 Between: 1 Smt. Natala Uma Devi, W/o. Ram Reddy, R/o. 1-6-141/26G, Vidyanagar, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 2 Smt. Mandi Rama Devi, W/o. Narsi Reddy, R/o. Flat No. 501, S.S. Chandana Home, Road No. 5, Chandrapuri Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. 3 Y. Brahmam Goud, S/o. Late Sriram Goud, R/o. H.No.1-6-141/40/1/2, Sriram Nagar Colony, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 4 Sri Kappala Ramesh, S/o. of Bakkaiah, 1-4-37, Near Peddoji Quarter, Poola Centre, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS AND State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep by the Authorised Officer, Region-III, Regional Office, Nalgonda. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in proceeding against the Agricultural lands of the petitioners herein by invoking the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, as without jurisdiction, violative of Section 31(i) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act of 2002 and violative of Article 300A of the constitution of India and consequently declare that the Notices issued and published by the respondents under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act of 2002 dated 17-11-2006, the notice published under Rule 8(1) of the Security interest and Enforcement Rules 2002 dated 19-1- 2007 and the sale notices dated 31-1-2007 are non est in law and violative of the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act 2002 and further direct the respondents not to proceed against the properties of the petitioners further under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.N.CHANDRADHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2397 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are four in number, assailing the action of the respondent in invoking the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short ‘the Act’) for realization of the amounts due to it. 2. This writ petition came to be admitted on 12.02.2007. While admitting the writ petition, an interim order came to be granted vide W.P.M.P.No.3062 of 2007. The respondent bank filed W.V.M.P.No.3210 of 2007 with a prayer to vacate the said interim order. The respondent bank also filed counter-affidavit. 3. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, both the learned counsel consented for disposal of the main writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Indisputably, the petitioners have a substantial right of appeal as provided under Section 17 of the Act. The petitioners without exhausting the effective alternative remedy available to them chose to approach this Court. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in K. Balakrishna v. Debt Recovery Tribunal & Others[1] held that writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy of appeal available under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of appeal available to them under Section 17 of the Act. The interim stay granted on 12.02.2007 stands vacated. No order as to costs. ________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 1st July, 2008. IBL [1] (2008) BC 447 (DB)