IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 19799 of 2008 Between: M/s Harika Minerals, Rep by its Prop.Sri Vasireddy Krishna, D.No.86-26-10/4, V..L. Puram, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union Bank of India (A Government of India Undertaking) rep by its Authorised Officer, Regional Office, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Union Bank of India, Rep by its Branch Manager, T.Nagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 The Collector and District Magistrate, West Godavari District, Eluru. .....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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the sale notice dated 16-8-2008 in Ref.No.CRLD:SN:932 issued by the 1st respondent to sell the secured asset i.e., the landed property of an extent of Ac.1.00 in R.S.No.13/1 situated I.Pangidi Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godvari District for realisation of the loan amount of Rs.7,84,068/- as illegal, arbitrary and inviolation Principals of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for one time settlement of the loan amount in pursuance of the representation of the petitioners in the interest of justice to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.19799 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the sale notice dated 16.8.2008 in Ref. No. CRLD: SN:932 issued by the first respondent to sell the secured asset i.e. the landed property of an extent of Ac.1-00 in R.S.No.13/1 situated I. Pangidi Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District for realization of the loan amount of Rs.7,84,068/-, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner firm has availed the cash credit facility from the second respondent for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- in the year 2005. The petitioner firm has paid some amounts to the second respondent and thereafter, it committed default in repaying the loan amount. The third respondent has passed an order dated 24.4.2008 exercising the powers under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) to take possession of the mortgaged property and thereafter a sale notice dated 16.8.2008 was issued. The petitioner made a representation dated 14.6.2008 to respondents 1 and 2 requesting for one time settlement of the loan account and that was not adhered to. The contention of the petitioner is that without issuing notice under Section 13(2) or Section 13(4) of the Act and without passing any order on its representation, sale notice dated 16.08.2008 was issued. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 stating inter alia that a notice dated 27.8.2007 under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner asking it to repay the entire amount within a period of 60 days. The petitioner has neither given reply to the said notice nor did he repay the amount. Ultimately, a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 14.11.2007 and the same was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. However, the covers along with acknowledgements were returned with endorsement addressee absent continuously for seven days. Then, an order dated 24.4.2008 was passed by the District Collector under Section 14 of the Act wherein he authorized the Tahsildar, Kovvur Mandal to take over possession of the mortgaged property and hand over the same to the authorized officer of the respondent Bank. Accordingly, the Tahsildar took the possession of the mortgaged property on 16.6.2008 and handed over the same to the authorized officer of the Bank under the cover of Panchanama. Ultimately, sale notice dated 16.6.2008 was published in two newspapers on 24.6.2008. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. Though, the respondent bank issued demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to repay the loan amount within 60 days, the petitioner has neither given any reply nor did it repay the loan amount. The respondent bank issued notice under Section 13(4) of the Act and thereafter, the District Collector issued orders under Section 14 of the Act to take possession of the mortgaged property and the same was taken on 16.6.2008 and sale notice dated 16.8.2008 was issued. Though the sale notice was issued, the respondents have not proceeded further in the matter. Further, the outstanding due is Rs.7,84,068/- as on 31.7.2007. As such, it cannot be said that the respondent bank has not adopted the procedure as contemplated under the Act. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. But however, in the circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the respondent bank for appropriate relief within a period of six weeks, and on such representation being made, the respondent bank shall consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 29-06-2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}