The High Court · 2025

AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ]. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION 0.13215 0F 2025 ORDER: (per the Hon'ble Mrs lustice Surepalli Nahda) Heard Sri K. Ramachandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetit oner aDDroached the Court seekinq D ra er as u nder: "....The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the 1st Respondent issued Possession Notice vide ABsg/Possession Notice/HL/2024-25 dated 05.03.2025 kept pending the Petitioner's representation dated 28.01.2025 and not given Reply as per the Rule 3A (C) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice guaranteed under Articles 14, 2L and 300A of Constitution of India and against the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Representation dated 01.04.2025 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of lustice."

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner availed loan from the respondent bank. Due to serious health issues the petitioner could not repay the loan and the \., t i ,- ,.-'-<tti;:"1.'-- I 2 SN,J W.P.I'Io.13215 2025 petitioner's account was declared NPA on 29.01.20,13. The original registered documents along with the all original link documents pert,rining to petitioner's house property bearing flat no.502 in the Balaji peart, H.No.4-32-775/2/74 in Sy. \to. 320 and 321 situated at Kukatpally, Medchal, Malkajgiri District purchaserd by the petitioner in the year 2015 vicie regd Document No.:;,146 of 2015 dated 29.04.2015 at S.R.O Ranga Reddy had ber:n kept in custody of the 2nd respond€rnt. The petitioner vide representation dated 28.01.2025, addressed to the 2nd responrlent requested grant of time of 3 to 4 months period for clearing the petitioner,s outstanding dur,:s. But however petitioner received possession notice dated 05.C3.2025 from the 1't respondent. The petitioner vide represr,ntation dated 01,04.2025 addressed to the 1.t respondent requer;ted for dropping of possession notice dated 05.03.2025 and for qrant of time oF three (:i) months to clear the outstanding det,ts. But however the said representation, dated Ol.O4.2O2S l-ad not been considered by the 1't respondent as on date. Aggrieved by the same petiti,lner approached the court by filing the rresent writ petition. A D CONC LUSION:- 3 SN,J W.P.No.132l5 2025 DISCU SION:-

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.O1.2025 addressed to the znd respondent herein and petitioner's representation, dated OL.O4.2O25 addressed to the 1st respondent in accordance to law within a reasonable period on humanitarian grounds.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank however contends that the remedy of the petitioner !ies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and no relief can be granted in the present writ petition. LUSION:-

6. This Court opines that against the possession Notice issued to the petitioner by the 1"t respondent herein under Section 13(4) and 13(12) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Fanancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2, petitioner has a remedy under the Act as per Section L7 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of , / i ) 4 SN,J W.P.|,o.13215 2025 Security Interest Act, 2OO2 to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is t ent to re r ud ment lv lon its iudoment dated 20.o4.2021 Bench of Aoex Court i reoorted in (202l) 6 SCC 771 in Mls. Radhakri shnan Indus n s. State of Himachal Prade sh, h referred to t 1 Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Reoistrar of Trade Marks (reoorted SSCClan d further the said view had been Full Bench of the Aoex Court (3 Judoes) in a reported in (2O21) SCC Online SC oaqe 8O1 in terated b iudqment Maqadh Suqar and Enerqv Limited Vs. Sta Others dated_ 24.O9.2O2L and in the said iudqment of Bihar and it is observe ara No.28 as under : 28,, The principles of law which emerge are thitt: (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issuet writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any othe,r purpose as well; (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition, One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person; (iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a I 5 SN,J W.P.No.13215 2025 violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy by itsetf does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the tn an aDDroDfla te thouoh Constitution ordinarilv. a writ oetition should not be entertained when an e 'cacious aIternate remedv is orovided bv law: v a sta re for en r rescribes the the rioht or liabilitv, resort must be had to that Darticular statutorv rem v before invokino the discretionarv remedy u der Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutorv remedies is a rule of oolicv. convenience and discretion; and (vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy reguires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be intertered with." This Court o ines that the Dresent ca e falls under second limb of Clause (iv) and (v) of the Aoex Court ment hi hra h This Court taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above) is not inclined to grant the prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 6 SN,J W.P.No.132l5 2025

8. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The facts and carcumstances of the case/ b) The subnrissions made by both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondr:nts, c) The petitioner's representation dated 28i.01.2025, addressed to the 1't respondent. d) The contents of the impugned possession notice, dated 05.O3.2025 issued to the petitioner b1r the 1"t respon d ent. e) Section 13(4) and 13(12) and Section 1.7 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 20O2 f) The observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above). i)2021) 6 SCC 77t ii) (1998) 8 SCC 1 iii) (2021) SCC Online SC paqe 801 Takinq into consideration that he subiect D roDertv ins to r sid man ta t R c of th ioner on he res o to initiate a nv coercive steDs aoainst the oetitioner 7 I,u rsua ncet o he DO se saonnoti Noti L/ o24-2 5, o5.O .2 e n en SN,J W.P.No. t 3215-2025 id A 59 /oosse ssl n 25 u to the e o f h 3 e a t e lo ert t a u t n e e n rem di o s on o e a n a n s o n a 5 3 2 s ed to th o r 1"t resDo de nt. c b no ord era to co e ion is s of T er h Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand cl osed. I To //TRUE COPY// SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUW BEGISTRAR sEcT@r oFFTGER 1 . The Bank of lvlaharashtra, Authorized Officer and Chief Manager, 2. The Bank of Maharshtra, Asset Recovery Branch, Janmangal, 4th 45147 , Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 023. 3. One CC to SRI K.RAMACHANDRA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI MIRZA SAFIULLA BAIG, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad Floor, PSK. GJP x I VAGATION HIGH COURT DATED:0710512025 ORDER WP.No.13215 ot 2025 .:! I t: A<.ls s* q ts\ --- -: *: ----, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 7 1A /3 6