HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.5513 of 2008 Date: July 7, 2010 Between: Pulaparthi Padmoji Rao, S/o.Krishna Rao, Aged about 46 years, Occ: business, R/o.H.No.8-3-4, A.N.Murthy Street, Narasapuram village & Mandal, West- Godavari District, and another … Petitioners And State Bank of India, Narasapur, West- Godavari District, represented by its Chief Manager and Authorized Official, and another … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed with a prayer as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in invoking the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 while I.A.No.19 of 2008 in O.A.No.1000 of 2002 is pending on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for One Time Settlement and to pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” Second petitioner herein is the mother of the first petitioner. Father of the first petitioner, i.e. the husband of the second petitioner, availed loan facility from the first respondent-bank in the year 1994 for business purposes, by giving collateral security of lands and buildings which stood in the name of the second petitioner, for an amount of Rs.20 lakhs. Out of the loan availed, an amount of Rs.9 lakhs was repaid by the late father of the first petitioner prior to his death in the year 1998. As the interest along with the balance loan amount was not paid, second respondent-bank approached Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam by filing O.A.No.1000 of 2002. The Tribunal, by judgment and decree dated 12-10-2007 allowed the said O.A. To recover the said amount, when respondents were initiating steps under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the present writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that petitioners have filed I.A.No.19 of 2008 before the Tribunal to set-aside the order dated 12-10-2007 passed in O.A.No.1000 of 2002; hence no further steps shall be taken. At the stage of admission, this court, while issuing notice, by order dated 14-03-2008, granted interim stay subject to deposit of an amount of Rs.5 lakhs. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that in compliance of the said order of this court, amount of Rs.5 lakhs has been deposited. The writ petition is mainly filed on the ground that when proceedings under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 are pending, no steps shall be taken under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The said question is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Transcore v. Union of India & Anr.[1]. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has held that in view of the pendency of the proceedings under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, respondents are not precluded from taking steps under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In this case, it is not in dispute that the judgment of the Debt Recovery Tribunal has become final and though application is filed by petitioners to set aside the same, as on today, no orders have yet been passed on the said application. Further, in yet another judgment in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain and Anr.[2], at para-10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has as under: “The High Court, therefore, erred in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the appellant bank to declare the respondents’ account as NPA from 31st March, 2000 and to apply the RBI Guidelines to their case and communicate the outstandings which shall be recoverable by quarterly instalments over a period of two years. The later part of the order passed by the High Court wherein a direction has been issued to stay the recovery proceedings and the recovery certificate issued against the respondents has been cancelled is also wholly illegal as the decree passed by the DRT had attained finality and proceedings for execution of decree could not be stayed in an independent writ petition when the respondents had not chosen to assail the decree by filing an appeal, which is a statutory remedy provided under Section 20 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above, petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, without any order as to costs. However, it is made clear that, while calculating balance amount, respondents shall give credit to the amount which is already paid by petitioners pursuant to the interim order passed by this court. It is also made clear that if any scheme is in existence or is likely to be notified for One Time Settlement, this order will not preclude the petitioners from filing an application for One Time Settlement and I am sure that if any such application is filed, the respondents will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 7, 2010 MRR [1] AIR 2007 SC 712 [2] AIR 2008 SC 1339