IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.23539 of 2009 Between: D.Sambasiva Rao. … Petitioner And 1. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India. 2. The authorized officer, State Bank of India. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.23539 of 2009 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Petitioner, who stood as guarantor for the education loan availed by his daughter, filed this writ petition questioning the possession notice issued by the authorised officer of the respondent- Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, “the SARFAESI Act”), dated 26.10.2009 alleging that on issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, an objection was filed on 15.08.2009 and without disposing of the said objection, the respondent-Bank cannot issue possession notice. It is alleged that had the Bank furnished the reasons for rejecting the objections, he would have filed an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In the absence of any reasons assigned by the Bank for rejecting the objections, he is handicapped to file an appeal. Admittedly, on issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent-Bank on 22.07.2009, which was replied by the bank through its counsel on 07.08.2009, rejecting all the contentions raised therein. On receipt of the reply, again the petitioner filed objections under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act on 15.08.2009 and filed the present writ petition contending that the objections raised by him have not been considered so far. It is now well settled that any illegality in the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, is also subject matter of appeal. Since the petitioner complains that his objections were not properly considered before issuing the possession notice, the same can also be a subject matter of the appeal before Debts Recovery Tribunal. In view of the effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act, we are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions in the appeal that are raised in the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J) ___________________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 04.11.2009. Lmv