IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.19834 of 2008 Between: Yerramsetti Dhanunjaya S/o. Venkataramyya, Resident of FF-3, Vemuri Homes, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND The State bank of India, Machavaram Branch, Rep. by Authorised Officer, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT 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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders, dated 19- 8-2008 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and further action taken by the Respondent Bank in Pursuance of the above orders, dated 19-8-2008 are arbitrary, illegal and violative of Securitisation Act, 2002 besides being violative of principles of Natural Justice and pass such other and further order or orders as this Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.NARENDER REDDY THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.19834 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 19.08.2008 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in appointing the Advocate Commissioner to handover the vacant possession of the property in question to the respondent-bank, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has obtained loan of Rs.7,00,000/- and mortgaged his flat bearing No.FF3 – 1st Floor in Vemuri Homes admeasuring 725 sq. feet. As he committed default in payment of instalments, the respondent-bank proceeded under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner states that despite the stay order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is subsisting, the respondent-bank has taken possession. Hence the writ petition. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent-bank stating that the petitioner had obtained a sale deed dated 10.03.2004 for the mortgaged flat No.TF2 and subsequently, rectification deed dated 12.03.2004 was obtained to read the flat as FF3 instead of TF2 and the vacant possession of flat No.FF3 was delivered to the Advocate Commissioner pursuant to the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in Crl.M.P.No.2087 of 2007. It is further stated that the petitioner filed S.A.No.115 of 2007 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the same was dismissed on 16.09.2009. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the order of stay subsisting, the respondent-bank has taken possession of the mortgaged property. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- bank. The petitioner has also availed the remedy of approaching Debts Recovery Tribunal and invited an order of dismissal and hence, there is no other alternative except to repay the outstanding due amount. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent-bank within two weeks from today and on such a representation being made, the respondent-bank shall consider and pass orders and communicate its decision to the petitioner. The petitioner shall pay the outstanding amount within three months thereafter, failing which, the respondent-bank is at liberty to take action in accordance with law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dt:23-06-2009 usd