IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 3431 of 2007 Between: Smt. Adusumilli Dhanalakshmi W/o. Malleswara Rao, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Bank, Koritepadu Br., Guntur District, Rep. by its Authorised Officer. 2 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam, .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass appropriate writ, order or direction particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No. 2 in not entertaining SA.IR.No. 304/2007 filed by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and issue a consequential direction to entertain the appeal as presented by the petitioner and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.L.NARASIMHAM The Court made the following: ORDER : This writ petition has been instituted seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not entertaining the SA.IR No. 304/2007 filed by the petitioner as illegal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein stood as a guarantor to a transaction of loan taken by Sri Adusumilli Malleswara Rao, Proprietor of M/s. Sai Cotton Traders from the respondent No.1 Bank. The petitioner had also mortgaged her house property bearing No. 10-3-24, Park Road, Sattenapalli, Guntur District standing on an extent of 217 Sq. yards. Invoking the provisions available under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the Act’), the 1st respondent Bank had taken possession of this asset also and they have also published a notice on 22.4.2006 proposing to auction the same. Since an appeal is provided under Section 17 of the Act against the action of the bank undertaken in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 13, the petitioner had availed of the said remedy and filed the appeal before Debt Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam on 25.1.20078. That appeal has not been entertained by the 2nd respondent – Debt Recovery Tribunal as it had not been accompanied by the required court fee on the total outstanding liability of the borrower. Though several contentions have been raised in this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Central Government amended the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, which were also notified on 2.2.2007. In particular while dealing with the amount of fee payable it has now been pointed out that where the applicant is an aggrieved party other than the borrower and where the amount of debt due is Rs.10 lakhs and above, the amount of fee payable is set as Rs.1250/- + Rs.125/- for every Rs.1 Lakh of rupees part thereof in excess of Rs.10 Lakhs, subject to a maximum of Rs.50,000/-. It is not in dispute that these amended rules have been brought into force with effect from 2nd February, 2007, and that the petitioner herein had got time to prefer the application before the 2nd respondent – Debt Recovery Tribunal even beyond 2.2.2007. Therefore, if only the application which is now presented by the petitioner on 25.1.2007 were presented in time on or after 2.2.2007, it is the provision that is contained in the amended rule that would have come to their rescue. Instead, the application preferred on 25.1.2007 is sought to be returned for payment of appropriate fee as stood prior to the amendment brought about on 2.2.2007. Leaving all the questions raised in the writ petition open for debate and decision in an appropriately constituted proceedings, suffice it to hold that since the writ petitioner could have availed the remedy of preferring the appeal under Section 17 of the Act on or after 2.2.2007 also, the 2nd respondent shall entertain the said appeal preferred by the petitioner/applicant dated 25.1.2007 by receiving the fee as per the amended Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, as amended on 2.2.2007 and deal with the same on its merits. With this, writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Dt : 15.4.2008 Knk Note : CC in (3) days (b/o) knk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}