THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Writ Petition No.32479 of 2010 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the property of the petitioner situated at Plot No.12, Sanjeev Housing Colony, Mahendra Hills, East Maredpally, Secunderabd, without complying with the provisions of Section 13 (9) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) as arbitrary and illegal. 2. It is stated that the petitioner’s husband obtained a loan from each of the respondents-banks and while paying instalments regularly, he died in an accident. On coming to know about his death, the 1st and 2nd respondents-banks issued notices under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act in the name of her husband and herself stating that their house was mortgaged while sanctioning loan and since the petitioner stood as guarantor to her husband, the respondents demanded her to pay an amount of Rs.52,21,487.83 and Rs.46,54,867/-, respectively, within 60 days from the date of receipt of notice. The petitioner on receipt of the same, gave a reply stating that she has not signed on any document and requested them to furnish the copies of loan transactions, but the respondents, without responding to her reply, are going to proceed with the matter. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petitinl. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for R-1 and R-2-banks. 4. As seen from the record, it is clear that the respondents 1 and 2- banks, while issuing notices dated 03-08-2010 and 24-08-2010, respectively, followed the prescribed procedure as provided under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. There is no dispute with regard to the loan obtained by the husband of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner stood as guarantor her husband. Further, issuing notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act does not give cause of action to the petitioner to file a writ petition. Normally, in the cases of this nature, the cause of action will arise only when the effective measures were taken by the banks under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the impugned notices issued by the respondents-banks are sustainable under the Law and the same are legally enforceable. The writ petition is pre-matured and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated:29-12-2010 ________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR kvr