IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 4249 of 2009 Between: V. Venkata Ramana S/o. Bitcheswara Rao R/o. H.No.6-31, Near Brahmamgari Temple, Yerravari Street, Piduguralla Town, Guntur Ditrict. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Authorized Officer, Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Guntur. 2 The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Piduguralla Branch, Guntur Ditrict. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to sell our house property fully described at items-1 & 2 of possession notice dated 17.10.2008 issued by the 1st respondent under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, while the matter for one time settlement is pending consideration with the 2nd respondent bank as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and void and consequentially direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the said property and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NAGI REDDY BAREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.V.DYUMANI The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to sell house property by issuing possession Notice dated 17.10.2008 by the first respondent under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SRFAESI Act”) while the matter is pending consideration for ‘one time settlement’ with the second respondent-Bank, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s brother took educational loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the second respondent and the petitioner and his father had given their house property as security for repayment of the said loan. It is also submitted that the respondents by invoking the provisions under the SRFAESI Act issued demand notice dated 23.4.2008 and possession notice dated 17.10.2008 and proposed to sell the residential house. It is further submitted that the respondent- Bank filed a suit O.S.No. 121 of 2008 before the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,60,422/- with interest and costs. It is stated that after knowing the above proceedings, petitioner approached the second respondent-Bank and submitted a compromise letter with an intention to settle the matter under one time settlement and the same is pending consideration before the second respondent-Bank. Smt. V. Dyumani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- Bank submits that as the petitioner’s brother failed to repay the amount due to the Bank, the account of the petitioner’s brother was classified as non-performing asset and the Bank proceeded under the SARFAESI Act by issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the Act demanding an amount of Rs. 4,60,422/- due as on 7.7.2008. As the petitioner’s brother failed to pay the amount due, the respondent-Bank issued demand notice dated 23.4.2008 under Section 13(2) of the Act to the petitioner and again possession notice dated 17.10.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition challenging the possession notice dated 17.10.2008. This Court while ordering notice before admission on 3.3.2009 granted status quo obtaining as on that day with regard to possession of the property in question subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- within three weeks from that day. It is stated that the conditional order has been complied with. Be that as it may, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act. Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case we permit the petitioner to make a representation requesting for instalments for rescheduling the loan or for waiving of the penal interest, to the second respondent-Bank within a period of two weeks from today and on such representation being made, the second respondent-Bank shall consider and dispose of the same within two weeks there after and communicate the said order to the petitioner. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken by the second respondent-Bank. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 24.07.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies