THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.No.21402 OF 2009 BETWEEN: 1. Smt. Panditi Ramadevi, W/o. Sri Prabhakara Rao, R/o. Sonia Gandhi 1st Lane, Opp, Police Quarters, Ongole, Prakasam District, and others. PETITIONERS And 1. Syndicate Bank, rep. by its Authorized Officer, Recoveries Cell, 16/32, J.V. Street, Nellore, and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. C. Raghu Counsel for the respondents: Sri M.V. Ramana The Court made the following – ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This writ petition, by the borrower, questioning the action of the respondent-Bank in proceeding to auction the acquired property, vide auction notice dated 7.09.2009 issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SRFAESI Act) as arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short the Rules). The petitioners state that on issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act, dated 28.02.2007, demanding an amount of Rs.39,49,454/-, the petitioners offered for One Time Settlement in the Lok Adalath conducted by the Bank through their letter dated 19.12.2008, and while the same is pending the possession notice under Rule 8(1) of the Rules dated 19.01.2009 was issued. While so, the respondent-bank addressed a letter dated 17.08.2009 calling upon the petitioners to attend the Lok Adalath, which will be conducted on 27.08.2009, for availing the benefit of One Time settlement and to submit their proposal before 27.08.2009. Since the petitioners have already submitted their proposal on 19.12.2008, they have informed the Bank that the same proposal holds good. In spite of the same, the respondent-bank is proceeding with the auction notice dated 7.09.2009. Hence the present writ petition. This Court by order dated 7.10.2009, stayed the further proceedings pursuant to the auction, subject to condition that the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within a period of six weeks. The learned counsel for the petitioners now submitted that the conditional order passed by this Court has not been complied with. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that since the petitioners failed to comply the conditional order passed by this Court, the Bank has proceeded with the auction and the auction purchaser has deposited a sum of Rs.24,00,000/-. In view of the same, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the auction conducted by the respondent-Bank, they have an alternative remedy of appeal to the Tribunal against the issuance of possession notice and subsequent proceedings. Since the petitioners failed to comply with the conditional order passed by this Court, we are not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of appeal, available to them under the law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) __________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) 2nd December, 2009 Js.