HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 27221 of 2008 O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in proceeding against the property of the petitioner situate in Plot No. 34, R.S.No. 141, D.No. 6- 122/B, Anuragnagar,Balapur X Roads, Meerpet, Saroornagar Mandal, pursuant to the notice dated 04.07.2008, published in Eenadu Telugu daily newspaper of its Edition dated 01.10.2008,without furnishing the documents as requested by the petitioner through letter dated 06.11.2008 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002. The brief facts that led to the filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows: The 2nd respondent firm and the 3rd respondent being its Managing Partner, have obtained a loan to a tune of Rs.96 lacs from the 1st respondent, to be repaid in 12 monthly installments, by offering the above mentioned property as collateral security. Again after one year, the 1st respondent renewed the loan facility in favour of the 2nd respondent without his knowledge. Thereafter, Respondents No. 2 and 3 committed default in discharging the loan amount and therefore, the account was treated as Non-Performing Asset. It appears, the 1st respondent issued notice on 04.07.2008 under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act, requiring the 2nd and 3rd respondents to pay the outstanding amount to a tune of Rs.1,10,94,386.00. The 1st respondent alleges that the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner also, but it was returned un-served and, therefore, the notice was published in Eenadu daily newspaper on 1.10.2008. According to the petitioner, when he came to know of the fact that the loan facility was renewed by the 1st respondent, he requested the bank, vide letter, dated 6.11.2008, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to furnish the copies of the following ten documents: 1) Copy of the above mentioned loan agreement. 2) Copy of loan renewal agreement/letter, Basis of renewal 3) Security bond of M. Jagadeesh 4) Statement of Account for the period May 2005 to till date 5) Statement of loan account for the period May 2005 till date 6) Xerox copies of returned legal notice cover with post acknowledgment issued to me. 7) Copy of Prime Security lease deed of Fish Tank/any new tanks 8) Copies of the other collateral security documents 9) Partnership deed of Sri Rama Enterprises 10) Balance sheets of Sri Rama Enterprises since 2005 March onwards. The petitioner contends that the information sought for by him was not furnished as yet, so as to enable him to give representation or raise any objections, under Section 13(3-A) of the 2002 Act. Therefore, he filed the present Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not provided with the necessary information sought for, thereby denying his right to submit representation/objections to the notice, dated 4.7.2008, which is nothing but violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the 2002 Act. In this connection, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. V. Union of India[1]. From a perusal of the material brought on record, it is clear that the 1st respondent bank has issued notice, dated 4.7.2008, through paper publication dated 1.10.2008, under Section 13(2) of the Act, requiring the petitioner to discharge the liability, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the same. Under Section 13(3-A), on receipt of the notice under sub-section (2), if the borrower makes representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation/objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within one week of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that thought he has sought for certain information, under the Right to Information Act, the officials of the 1st respondent bank have not furnished the same. Admittedly and as fortified by the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemical’s case (cited supra), the lenders have to act fairly and in good faith and the financial transactions covered by the 2002 Act cannot be a one-sided affair, shutting out all possible and reasonable remedies to the borrowers. However, from a perusal of the letter dated 11.12.2008, it is clear that except the balance sheet of the 2nd respondent firm, the 1st respondent has furnished all the documents requested by the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was not furnished the required information cannot be acceded to. We, therefore, grant 15 days’ time to the petitioner to give representation/objection, as required under Section 13 (3-A) of the 2002 Act. On giving such representation, the 1st respondent bank is at liberty to pass orders considered appropriate thereon, under Section 13(4) of the Act. It is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------- (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 3rd August 2009 ksld pppp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} [1] (2004) 4 SCC 311