'4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13213 OF 2025 Between: 1. M/s. S. Balaiah & Sons, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri S. Nageswara Rao Age 67 Years, R/o D.No.8-1-117, Municipal Ward No. 12 Block No.1, 1 Lane, Butchaiah Thota, Guntur -522001, Andhra Pradesh S. Nageswara Rao, S/o Late S.Balaiah, Age 67 Years, R/o D.No.8-1- 117, Municipal Ward No.12 Block No.1, 1®^ Lane, Butchaiah Thota, Guntur -522001, Andhra Pradesh St 2. ...PETITIONERS AND Punjab National Bank, (Ersthwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce), Circle Sastra Centre, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, 9-35, Kavuri Towers, Kamaiah ThopuKanuru, Vijayawada - 520007, Andhra Pradesh. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Ersthwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce), Kothapet Branch, Guntur - 522 001, Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing sale Notice dated 25-04-2025 by the respondents with subject Sale of Secured Assets Notice under Section 13(4) and 13 (8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, r/w Rule 8 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 1. 2. sr^ 2002 with Ref Loan A/C No's - A/C No.05705015001422 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of SARFACI Act and apart from violation of Art 14, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India consequently to direct the respondents to act the upon the acceptance/sanction letter for an amount of Rs.85,00,000/- OTS proposal dated 24-04-2025 which agreed by the respondents and to receive the balance amount of Rs.80,00,000/- after deducting the affront amount of Rs.5,00,000/- paid earlier on 15-12-2023. was 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 grant stay of all further proceedings issued vide Notice dated 25-04-2025 issued by the respondents with subject Sale of Secured Assets Notice under Section 13(4) & 13 (8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, r/w Rule 8 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 with Ref; Loan A/C No's A/C No.05705015001422 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PALLA BALL! ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2:— The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010263492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0:^0 [3483] 0^^ WRIT PETITION NO: 13213/2025 Between: S Baiaiah And Sons and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Punjab National Bank and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 09.05.2025 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the sale notice dated 25.04.2025 issued by respondent bank under section 13(4) & 13(8) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short, 'SARFAESI Act'), read with Rule-8(6) of the Rules made thereunder. ...RESPONDENT(S) 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's loan account having been classified as a Non Performing Asset, the respondent bank resorted to recourse under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. That though the petitioner filed objection including the ground of limitation, a sale notice was issued on 25.08.2021 proposing the date of auction on 23.09.2021. That the petitioner challenged the said sale notice before the Debts Recovery J{CJ'^<R£3 ' .WiPMo.nznofzozs 2 Tribunal (for short, 'DRT') by filing S.A.No.290 of 2021, wherein conditional stay was granted. That though the petitioner had complied with the said conditions, the respondent bank, pending SA, approached the Court and moved Criminal MP No.54 of 2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. That the action of the respondent bank in issuing sale notice pending SA before DRT was declared invalid by this Court in W.P.No.9175 of 2023. That subsequently, negotiations were held wherein the bank authorities agreed to extend the benefit of One Time Settlement (for short, 'OTS') Scheme, however, the authorities could not keep their promise, which led to filing of writ petition vide W.P.No. 14827 of 2024. That the said writ petition was disposed of observing that the bank authorities are at liberty to consider OTS proposal and pass orders in accordance with banking regulations. Despite the same there was no positive response from the bank. That thereafter the DRT disposed of SA No.290 of 2021. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the bank authorities themselves had taken OTS proposal and decided various amounts, they were denying the said proposal, which is opposed to Law of Estoppel and Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation. That after disposal of SA, the respondent bank had again issued a fresh sale notice dated 25.04.2025 under Sections 13(4) 81 13(8) of SARFAESI Act in utter disregard to the amount settled at OTS proposal. Questioning the said sale notice, this writ petition came to be filed. .W(P.J^o.l3213of2025 3 3. Heard Sri Balu Anil Kumar Palla, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon^, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deplored action of High Courts in exercising writ jurisdiction ignoring availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act. They are extracted hereunder: "55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncements of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the Sarfaesi Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection." 6. Of late, this Court, vide orders dated 11.07.2024, passed in Writ Petition No. 14411 of 2024, held that in the absence of exceptions enumerated in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bani^, the petitioners should avail the alternate remedy in terms of SARFAESI Act and further taking note of the observations referred to supra in para-55 in Satyawati Tondon (supra 1), finding no merit in the writ petition granted liberty to the petitioners to avail an appropriate remedy. . (2010) 8 see 110 ^ (2024) 6 see 579 .W<P.!Ko. 13213 of2025 4 7. Availability of alternative efficacious statutory remedy provided under SARFAESI Act debars the petitioner from invoking writ jurisdiction. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, without going into merits of the matter, this writ 8. petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- A. VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGI^AR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER SE To, 1. One CC to Sri Palla Balu Anil Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 5 0 5 ll'N 20?5 M ^ . Cutienl Seciion ORDER WP.No.13213 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS