IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.24625 of 2009 Between: 1. Ranganatha Swamy, S/o. Venkataramanarsaiah, R/o. H.No.22- 08-158, Quarter No.38, Doctor’s Colony, Balaji Nagar, Warangal, and another. … PETITIONERS And 1. The Authorised Officer, L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited, Warangal, Warangal District Bank, and another. … RESPONDENTS Counsel for Petitioners: Sri P. Hemachandra Counsel for respondents: N.A. This Court made the following: ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The petitioners, who are third parties to the debt recovery proceedings initiated by the first respondent-Corporation, filed this writ petition contending that they requested their elder son, the second respondent herein, to purchase the property in the name of M/s.R.K. Educational Society, in order to give moral support to their son to run educational institution. The second respondent instead of obtaining the registered sale deed in the name of M/s.R.K. Educational Society, obtained the same in his name by mentioning his name first i.e., ViJayapuram Radhakrishna, Secretary of R.K. Educational Society, mortgaged the said property with the first respondent, availed loan, and committed default in payment of installments. On the enquiries made by the petitioners it was revealed that a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SRFAESI Act’) was issued against the second respondent for the default committed by him, followed by proceedings No.A7/4747/2009 dated 7.08.2009 issued by the Executive Magistrate under Section 14 of the SRFAESI Act for taking possession of the schedule property. Under the said circumstances, the petitioners made a representation on 5.11.2009 to the first respondent not to proceed further and take possession of the property making them shelterless. Without considering their representation, when the first respondent again started action for taking possession of the property, the petitioners filed this writ petition seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 7.08.2009 issued by the Executive Magistrate under Section 14 of the SRFAESI Act without considering their representations, as arbitrary and illegal and to stay all further proceedings. This Court in ICIC Bank Limited, Bangalore v. V.T.Prakash[1] held that when the petitioners-the third parties to the proceedings, who claim rights over the property, which was attached for due recovery of debt by a financial institution, where the Recovery Officer issued sale proclamation, can file their objections to the attachment or sale of any property in execution of the certificate. On dismissal of the claim petition by the Authorised Officer to issue sale certificate, the third party may prefer an appeal as provided under Section 30 of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, “the Act”), not withstanding the provisions of Section 29 of the Act. If the third parties are aggrieved by the rejection of the claim, they may also institute a suit as per sub-rule 6 of Rule 11 of Second Schedule to Income-tax Act, 1961, and establish their rights in the property in dispute. In view of the effective remedy available to the petitioners, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. The petitioners can file their objections before the Authorised Officer for attaching the property and conducting of sale and can avail the remedies available to them as mentioned supra. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J.) ___________________ (G. CHANDRAIAH, J.) 13th November, 2009. Js. [1] 2003 (3) ALD 369