IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.27947 of 2008 Between: S.Jayaram, S/o. Late Narsaiah, A.P.Legislative Assembly, R/o. A-9, Flat No.201, Saiswapna Residency, Road No.4, Filmnagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Bank of India, Rep by its Chief Manager, Personal Banking Branch (4156) S.P.Road Branch, Victoria Castle, Near Airport Flyover, Secunderabad - 500 003 2 The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office- II, Patny circle, Secunderabad. 3 The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Region II, Hyderabad/Secunderabad. 4 The Manager, Customer Services, State Bank of India, Secunderabad/Hyderabad. 5 The General Manager, State Bank of INdia, Bank Street Koti, Hyderabad. .....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 may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus: (a) by declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 5 in not rectifying the defect of the title deed in document No.5032 of 2002 dated 24- 9-2002 registered in the office of S.R.O. Malkajgiri, R.R.District, as illegal, arbitrary against the Principles of Natural justice, (b) to delcare the action of Respondents No.1/Bank in forfeiting the E.M.D. & other amounts paid by me, vide Letter No.F.No.19/SALEHL, dated 19-5-2007 by the Respondents No.1/Bank, as ilelgal, arbitrary against the Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, (c) to direct the Respondents to rectify the Sale deed doc. No.5032 of 2002, 24-9-2002 registered in the office of S.R.O. Malkajgiri, R.R.District, pertaining to the Flat bearing No.205, Sri Balaji Towers, Old Safilguda, Secunderabad,. and to register the same in the name of the Petitioner by receiving the balance sale consideration, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.S.P.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.27947 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) The petitioner claims that in an auction conducted by the 1st respondent bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in the month of June, 2006, he had obtained Flat No.205 of Sri Balaji Towers, Old Safilguda, Secunderabad. The petitioner claims that reserve price of the said Flat was fixed, at Rs.6,36,000/- and in response to the said tender notice, the petitioner’s offer for Rs.6,44,000/-, was accepted. The petitioner claims that he had paid Rs.1,61,000/- initially and further an amount of Rs.39,000/- towards E.M.D. and his offer was accepted by the Bank vide its letter, dated 08-07-2006 and required the petitioner to pay balance amount of Rs.4,44,000/- by 08-07-2006. The petitioner however submits that thereafter he approached various financial institutions to raise loan for the balance amount, but he was informed that there was defect in title and thereupon he represented the Bank to clarify the defect in title, but of no avail and ultimately, he did not pay the balance amount. Under the letter of the Bank, dated 19-05-2007, the Bank issued proceedings forfeiting the amount paid by the petitioner, as he failed to deposit the balance amount and Bank had taken steps for fresh sale of the suit schedule property. At that stage, the petitioner approached this court by way of present writ petition alleging that he has rights as an earlier purchaser and he cannot be penalized. Respondent bank filed a counter pointing out that the petitioner had failed to comply with the terms of the tender in spite of the Bank extending time for payment of balance amount and as he did not deposit the balance amount within the time stipulated, the E.M.D. was forfeited. It is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that subsequently original borrowers approached the Bank and offered to liquidate the entire liability and according to the settlement reached between the Bank and the original borrowers, the entire amount has been paid by the borrowers and that the mortgage over the property was released and the original title deeds were returned to the original borrowers. It is evident, therefore, that there is no subsisting claim of the Bank over the suit schedule property. In view of this, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as the sale proceedings of the said flat itself stood cancelled and withdrawn. Admittedly, the petitioner had not complied with the terms of the sale, and thereby no legal right is vested in the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to make a representation to the Bank for refund of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid as E.M.D. either in full or in part, which has been forfeited by the Bank. In view of the fact that the bank had already received the entire amount from the original borrowers, we therefore, permit the petitioner to make a representation to the Bank for refund of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and on such representation, the 1st respondent bank shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 04-03-2009 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}