IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.15867 OF 2010 BETWEEN: C. Babu Rao S/o. Rama Rao …. Petitioner AND The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank and another …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.15867 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the sale notice dated 04-06-2010 published in the local Sakshi Daily Newspaper and consequently to declare that the sale notice and the initiation taken by respondent No.2 - Authorized Signatory, Syndicate Bank, Hyderabad, is against the procedure laid down under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Securitisation Act). 2. Heard both sides. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased Flat No.102 of 600 square feet (including common area), together with undivided share of 20 square yards out of 200 square yards in premises bearing No.7-1-632/38 & 7-1-632/41, Bapunagar, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad by taking a loan of Rs.7,25,000/- from respondent No.1 – Syndicate Bank in 2004. Since then, he has been regularly paying the monthly installments at Rs.8,200/- per month. The term of the loan is 15 years. But, on 30-11-2007, without any prior correspondence, respondent No.1 issued a sale notice to the petitioner and proceeded to take possession of the subject flat and put the same for auction under the Securitisation Act. Challenging the same, petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal and filed S.A. No.249 of 2007 along with I.A. No.1107 of 2007 seeking stay of all further proceedings and the Debts Recovery Tribunal vide its orders dated 28-12-2007 in I.A. No.1107 of 2007 granted stay of all further proceedings, on condition of petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by 28-01-2008. Accordingly, petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and S.A. No.249 of 2007 is pending. Petitioner further submits that on 06-06-2010, he saw an advertisement in the Sakshi Daily News Paper issued by respondent No.2 stating that his flat would be put for auction on 08-07-2010 and on seeing the same, he approached his counsel and came to know that S.A. No.249 of 2007 was dismissed for non-prosecution as his counsel did not pursue the same. Then, he approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal for restoration of S.A. No.249 of 2007, but there is no Presiding Officer. Hence, this writ petition. 4. On 07-07-2010, this Court ordered interim stay vide W.P.M.P. No.19972 of 2010, on condition of petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.75,000/-. Accordingly, petitioner complied the said order. 5. Respondents filed W.V.M.P. No.3106 of 2010 to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court vide W.P.M.P. No.19972 of 2010 dated 07-07-2010, stating that the petitioner obtained loan from respondent No.1 bank in 2004, but he did not repay the loan, inspite of several notices. As the petitioner is not repaying the loan, notice dated 28-07-2007 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act was issued to him demanding payment of Rs.8,41,238/-, which was outstanding as on 30-06-2007. As there was no response to the said notice within the time stipulated i.e. 60 days, respondent No.1 bank issued possession notice dated 07-11-2007 under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation Act. Thereafter, respondent No.1 bank issued the sale notice dated 30-11-2007 and on that the petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A. No.249 of 2007 and obtained stay and thereafter said S.A. was dismissed for non-prosecution. Then, petitioner approached this Court and obtained stay. Therefore, he prays to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution, we are not inclined to exercise our equitable jurisdiction inasmuch as it is open to him to move before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J July 28, 2010. _______________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J KTL