HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WPMP.No. 24069 OF 2010 IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO. 15550 OF 2010 . DATED 9T H AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN Chelluri Somasekhar …..Petitioner and Bank of Baroda, Rajahmundry, rep. By its Senior Branch Manager and 4 ors. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WPMP.No. 24069 OF 2010 IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO. 15550 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Assailing the action of the ﬁrst respondent in initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 in respect of the property of the petitioner bearing No.2-577, Palacharla village, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry, this Writ Petition is filed. It is stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the Writ Petition that as the ﬁrst respondent-refused to grant loan by mortgaging the aforesaid house property of the petitioner, the petitioner hatched a plan for the transfer of the aforesaid house property in favour of the respondents 2 and 3 herein by executing a registered sale deed and thereafter the respondents 2 and 3 could obtain loan from the ﬁrst respondent-bank by mortgaging the said property. In such a plan, some terms and conditions were resulted between the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4. Accordingly, the petitioner transferred the said house property to the respondents 2 and 3 herein under a registered sale deed dated 27.2.2006 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. It is stated that it is the speciﬁc understanding between them that the very purpose of executing a sale deed by the petitioner in favour of respondents 2 and 3 herein is to enable them to obtain a loan on the basis of the transfer made by the petitioner in their favour; that they should not further alienate the property conveyed to them; also that the loan amount to be discharged by the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein and that after discharge of the loan, the property would be re- conveyed to the petitioner by the respondents 2 and 3. These conditions were put in by way of a Khararnama dt. 10.3.2006. It is further stated that respondents 2 and 3 did not pay the amount as per the Khararnama dt. 10.3.2006 to the petitioner. Later the petitioner came to know that the respondents 2 and 3 sold the house property to one Sri G.Subramanyam under a Registered General Power of Attorney cum Sale Agreement. And even they did not pay the instalment amounts to the ﬁrst respondent-bank. Hence, the ﬁrst respondent-bank initiated proceedings by invoking the power conferred under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 ( for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) by issuing a possession notice dated 17.6.2010 to the third respondent herein for non payment of the loan amount. It is further stated that the petitioner has ﬁled O.S.No. 255 of 2009 against the respondents 2 to 4 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 27.2.2006 and that the same is pending adjudication. This Court while admitting the Writ Petition on 02.07.2010, granted interim direction subject to condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the ﬁrst respondent-bank that the petitioner has not complied the direction of this Court and thereby failed to pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as ordered by this Court on 02.07.2010. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has ﬁled WPMP.No. 24069 of 2010 seeking extension of time for payment of the amount as directed in the order dated 02.07.2010. The said application is seriously opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent bank. We have heard the learned Counsel on either side at length. Perused the material on record. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit in O.S.No. 255 of 2009 ﬁled by the petitioner before the Civil Court for cancellation of the sale deed dt.27.2.2006 is pending consideration, it is to be seen that the said civil proceedings are in no way concern to the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. This Court will not go into the said civil dispute and adjudicate while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further with regard to the relief prayed in the interlocutory application for extension of time to comply with the direction of this Court, it is to bee seen that the reasons given by the petitioner in the said application are not convincing. More so, the said application is seriously opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-bank. It is now well settled that if the petitioner has any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then he has to avail remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The Apex Court while dealing with the similar matter in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Satyawathi Taondon and ors ( SLP (C) No.10145 of 2010, dated 26.6.2010) expressed as follows: “ ….In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenging to the action taken for recovery of the public dues etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.” In view of the foregoing discussion and the view expressed by the Apex Court in the judgment referred supra, this Writ Petition as well as WPMP are liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to avail eﬃcacious alternative available under law. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------------------------ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED -------------------------------------------- JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH DATED 09TH AUGUST, 2010. Msnr.