IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 118 of 2006 Between: M/s Venkata Gayathri Oil Rotary and Flour Mill, rep by its proprietor Vitta Venkata Subbaiah, Kaja Street, Cumbum, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Bank of Inida, Cumbum Branch rep by its Authorised Officer, Cumbum Village, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District. 2 State Bank of Inida, Cumbum Branch, rep by its Branch Manager, Cumbum (V&M), Prakasam District. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly on the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action to the respondents in not considering petitioners objections dt.1.12.2005 submitted to the notice dt.30.9.2005 issued by the 1st respondent is illegal, irregular against the principles of natural justice and violative of provisions of Securitization, Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act 2002, and the rules framed there under and also violative of Art 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the buidling property situated in Ac 0.06 cents in Sy No.45 of Kagithalagudem Village, Hazarathgudem Panchayat, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri V.Eswaraiah, J.) The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent bank, in not considering the petitioner’s objections dated 1.12.2005 submitted in response to the notice dated 30.9.2005 issued by the 1st respondent, as illegal and violative of the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder and consequently to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the building property situated in Ac.0.06 cents in Sy.No.45 of Kagithalagudem village, Hazarathgudem Panchayat, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District. Heard the counsel. The petitioner is a proprietary concern and availed credit facility of Rs.5.00 lakhs for its Oil mill business from the respondent bank. It is stated that the petitioner repaid Rs.3.00 lakhs and could not repay the balance amount. It is further stated that the first respondent bank issued notice dated 30.9.2005 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to discharge the loan amount of Rs.4,62,081.00 within sixty days or submit objections, if any. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 7.10.2005 and the petitioner submitted objections to the said notice on 1.12.2005 and the same was duly served on 2.12.2005. A xerox copy of the acknowledgement also is filed. It is only if the said objections are not accepted and the rejection thereof is communicated under Section 13(3A), that further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act shall follow. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent bank stating that objections dated 1.12.2005 said to have been filed are not available in the records and therefore the respondent bank could not pass any orders. We are of the opinion that when the petitioner specifically asserted in the affidavit that objections to the notice dated 30.9.2005 were filed on 1.12.2005 and the same was received by the respondent on 2/3.12.2005 as per the acknowledgement, there cannot be any justification on the part of the respondent bank in proceeding further in the matter under Section 13(4) of the Act, bypassing the mandatory requirement under Section 13(3A) of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to direct the respondent bank to consider the objections filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. As the objections filed by the petitioner are not available with the respondent bank, the petitioner is permitted to file fresh objections within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the filing of such fresh objections, the respondent bank shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereupon under Section 13(3A) of the Act and communicate the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 26.3.2009 kpr