HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 34499 OF 2011 Between: Surampudi Surya Prakash Rao and one another ………….Petitioners AND The Chief Manager and one another ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an order particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-Bank in issuing notice dated 28.11.2011 to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 asking the petitioner to repay the outstanding loan amount as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioners herein approached the first respondent-Bank for securing housing loan for an amount of Rs. 18,00,000/-. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the second respondent granted only Rs. 10,20,000/- out of 18,00,00/- and remaining amount of Rs,. 7,80,000/- was not sanctioned even till today but issued possession Notice (symbolic) dated 28.11.2011, passed by the second respondent under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 read with Rule 8(1) & (2) of Security Interest Rules 2002, asking the petitioners to pay Rs. 11,18,027/- and interest thereon with effect from 13.9.2011, within sixty days. Aggrieved by the same, the preset Writ Petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners and also perused the material made available on record. Under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act, any aggrieved person can file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Section 17 of the Act reads as under: “Right to appeal: (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may prefer an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken. (2) Where an appeal is preferred by a borrower, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Debts Recovery Tribunal unless the borrower has deposited with the Debts Recovery Tribunal seventy five percent of the amount claimed in the notice referred to in sub- section (2) of Section 13: Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section. (3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall, as far s may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder.” The Supreme Court in SLP (c ) No. 10145 of 2010 dated 26th July 2010 at paragraph 27 of the judgment observed as under: “27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SRFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the above observation of the Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No. 10145 of 2010, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO , J DATE: 29.12.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.