THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKER PER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT PETITION No.14578 OF 2011 DT.28.06.2011 Between: Namburi Sundara Rama Raju, S/o.late Suryanarayana Raju And two others ……..Petitioners Vs. Indian Bank, Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, Chennai and three others ……..Respondents. O R D E R: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Heard Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondents. At their request, the writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in invoking the SARFAESI Act particularly in respect of agricultural properties viz., total land in an extent of Ac.21.76 cents covered by Survey Nos.678/1, 2, 679, 680, 677/1 to 3, 674 and 681 by bringing the agricultural properties to auction by giving a go bye to the procedure contemplated under the Act and also for not serving the sale notice personally as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to take any further steps pursuant to the sale notice dated 20.05.2011 published on 21.05.2011 and also not to take possession of the properties totaling in an extent of Ac.21.76 cents covered by Survey Nos.678/1, 2, 679, 680, 677/1 to 3, 674 and 681 and to pass appropriate orders. On 13.06.2011, this Court while granting stay of all further proceedings pursuant to notice dt.20.05.2011, directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs(Rupees twenty lakhs only) within two weeks from that date, but the petitioners failed to deposit the same. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that pisciculture (fish ponds) comes under agricultural allied activity and he also contends that the same is admitted by the second respondent in its notice dated 27.01.2011. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the contentions raised by the petitioners’ counsel are all questions of facts. We cannot go into these aspects under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The petitioners already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by availing the statutory remedy by filing an appeal in A.O.R.No.2 of 2010 and the same is pending. In the circumstances, the Debt Recovery Tribunal is hereby directed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.17554 of 2011, dt.13.06.2011. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J., ________________ K.G.SHANKER, J. Dt.28.06.2011 Note: Issue C.C.within three days. B/o.Rns