HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 26918 OF 2010 Between: Smt. C. Pravathi W/o Srisailam Yadav, Hindu aged about 46 yeas ………….Petitioner AND Indian Bank represented by its Assistant General Manager/Authorized Officer, Hyderabad and one another ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing notice dated 18.10.2010 in spite of O.A No. 61 of 2010 filed by it pending before the Debut Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabd against the property of the petitioner to conduct the sale on 20.11.2010 at 2.00PM as illegal and arbitrary. Earlier the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 25941 of 2009 against the sale notice issued by the first respondent-Bank dated 20.11.2009 and the same was dismissed. Again when the first respondent-Bank issued Notice dated 18.10.2010 giving the sale notice in the newspaper viz., Andhra Jyothi Telugu daily published on 19.10.2010 stating that the petitioner and others are liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,53,89,878 as on 31.7.2009 and the Bank intends to conduct the sale of the property on 20.11.2010 at 2.00 PM, the petitioner again filed the present Writ Petition for the same cause of action. Hence, the Writ Petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court in SLP © No. 10145 of 2010 dated 26th July 2010 observed as under: “It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” Following the above Supreme Court Judgment, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________ P. SWAROOP EDDY,J DATE: 28.10.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.