HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 236 of 2009 O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondent – bank in putting to sale the property bearing MCH.No. 1-6-212/24, Parsigutta, Hyderabad belonging to the petitioner, by issuing the sale notice, dated 25th December 2008, pending adjudication of S.A. No. 30 of 2006 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, as illegal, improper and violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner is that he availed loan facility to a tune of Rs.11,50,000/- from the respondent - bank in December 2002 and repaid a sum of Rs.30,000/- and thereafter, committed default in discharging the balance amount. When the respondent - bank initiated the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the 2002 Act’) and issued possession notice, dated 25th March 2005, the petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 17 of the 2002 Act by filing S.A. No. 30 of 2006 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and got stayed all further proceedings of the matter. However, for non- prosecution, that Application was dismissed. On coming to know the same, the petitioner filed another Application seeking restoration of the Securitisation Application, along with an Application to condone the delay in presenting the same, and both the Applications are pending consideration. However, in the meantime, the respondent - bank has issued the impugned notice putting to sale his immovable property referred to supra. Hence, he filed the present Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that his client has already discharged major portion of the amount due i.e. Rs. 9 lacs and in that view of the matter, the respondent - bank ought not to have taken any coercive steps against the property of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the respondent - bank. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the writ petition is misconceived, inasmuch as the petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the 2002 Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed for default and the application filed for restoring the said Application was also dismissed. The whole episode shows the callousness and indifference on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to bring to the notice of the Tribunal, any subsequent developments, pursuant to the impugned sale notice, and seek appropriate relief thereon. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present order, will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the respondent - bank for rescheduling the loan or one time settlement. No costs. ---------------------------- (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 5th August 2009 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}