P.Sakthivel v. The Union of lndia

7. Smt. K.Lakshmi, Wo. Late K.Raghavendra Rao, aged about 59 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o. H.No.1-9-78, New Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, call for the records relating to issuance of proceedings in R.P. No.4 of 2008 in O.A. No.399 of 1999 where under Respondent No.4 was appointed as Advocate-Commissioner to take physical possession of the property belonging to the petitioner i.e., bearing H.No.1-9-78 (Old No.8-67), Plot No.15A, admeasuring 225 Sq.yards, situated at Dwarakapuram, Kothapet Village, Uppal Revenue Mandal, R.R. District and the consequent intimation of date of execution of warrant dated 1110712025, as being illegal, arbitrary and contra to Section 36 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security lnterest Ac, 2002 (as amended by Act 44 of 2016) as well as contra to Section 24 of Recovery of Debts due to banks and Financial lnstitutions Act, 1993, as the debt is time barred and consequently to set aside the proceedings in R.P. No.4 of 2008 in O.A. No.399 of 1999 on the file of Respondent No.3 including the appointment of 4th Respondent as Advocate-Commissioner to take possession of the subject property in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in R.P. No.4 of 2008 in O.A. N0 399 of 1999 where under Respondent No.4 was appointed as Advocate-Commissioner to take physical possession of the property belonging to the petitioner i.e., bearing H.No.1-9-78 (Old No.8-67), Plot No.15A, admeasuring 225 Sq.yards, situated at Dwarakapuram, Kothapet Village, Uppal Revenue Mandal, R.R. District and the consequent intimation of date of execution of warrant dated 1110712025, pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SUDHAKARA RAO AMBATI cou nse I for the Res ponde nts N o.,t &2' B:f$ si:i,:l3y"T,:, # ilt: Counsel for the Respondents No.3to7: The Court made the following: ORDER ';rwf \ \ THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHIIMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON,BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO WRIT PETTTION NO.2 L709 0F 2025 Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) ' 1 . The Writ Petition has been hled against a Notice dated

17.O7.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner stating that the warrant pursuant to the orders of the 'Tribunal' shall be executed on 28.07.2025 with regard to the taking over of physical possession of the scheduled properties.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the High Court should invoke its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the Notice is barred by the Limitation under section 36 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2OO2 ('the 2002 Act).

3. Counsel relies on an O'A., i.e., O.A.No.399 of 1999, I-tled by the Bank of Baroda before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad and an order passed therein on 19.12.2007.

4. The Writ Petition does not disclose any of the documents immediately preceding the impugned Notice of the Advocate Commissioner, i.e., Notices under sections 13(2) and 13(4) of tlre 2OO2 Act. These documents are admittedly absent'

5. Counsel further submits that the Writ petition was filed in a hurry and these documents were not included in the Writ Petition

6. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Notice. None of the exceptions, as settled by thc Supreme Court, to the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy are present in this casc. The issue of the impugned Notice being barred by the Limitation under section 36 of the 2OO2 Act is vague and uncorroborated. 7. W.P.No.217O9 of : )25, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. The peti[ioner is granted liberty to approach the a1:propriate statutory forum subject to the proceeding being filed before Ol.O}.2O2S. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no ordcr as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/-S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO SISTANT REGISTRAR || ! SECTION OFFICER -.A f I\ I The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Union of lndid Room No. 134, North Block, New Delhi. The Govemor, Reserve Bank of lndia, lBth Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, laumOiil ,i000oi . The Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal_|, 3rd floor, Triveni Complex, Hyderabad. The Chief .Manager, Bank of Baroda, Hyderabad Main Branch, Abids Circle, Hyderabad One CC to SRI SUDHAKARA RAO AMBAT|, Advocate. tOpUCl ''' -"'' .O..ng C^C to SRI GAD| PRAVEEN KUMAR, (Deputy Solicitor General of lndia), High Cou( for the State of Tetangana at niOeiaOZO. iOpUCi Two CD Copies. To, 1 2 J

7. W BSK , CC TODAY Ce 1HE Si4 ( ;5 rljl 2!5 c)\ * C)r 5 HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 ORDER WP.No.21709 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q 1 \r