APHC010308812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE* TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 15578 OF 9()7R Between: 1. Pinnamaraju alias Nandanavanam Padmavathi W/o. Anantha Padmanabha Rao, aged 60 years Occ House Wife, R/o. D.No. 16-2- 469, line, Vedam Vari Agraharam, Srinivasa Agraharam, Railway Gate Road, Stone Housepet Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Nandanavanam Anantha Padmanabha Rao, S/o. N.B.V. Krishna Vijaya Mahal Rao, 1st line, Vedam aged 62 years Occ Business, R/o. D.No. 16-2-469 Vari Agraharam, Srinivasa Agraharam Vijaya Mahal Railway Gate Road, Stone Housepet Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 3. Nandanavanam Subramanya Surya Teja, S/o. Anantha Padmanabha Rao, aged 27 years Occ Student, D.No. 16-2-469, 1st line, Vari Vedam Gate Agraharam, Srinivasa Agraharam, Vijaya Mahal Railway Road, Stone Housepet, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ...Petitioners AND 1 ■ Union of India, Rep- by its Secretary to Government of India Finance, New Delhi. Ministry of 2. Reserve Bank of India, Rep. by its Regional Director, Fort Glacis, No. 16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001. 3. M/s State Bank of India, Rep. by Managing Director, (R, C and SARG) ^ Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman P^nt, Mumbai, Maharashtra 40002. 4. the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, D.No. 54-20-1B/3F/U6, 3rd Floor Upstairs of KFC, Surya Prakash Square, Gurunanaknagar Road, Vijayawada, NTR District. 5. Mathukumalli Padmavathi, W/o. Nandanavam Nageswara Rao, Aged about 63 years, Occ House Wife, Dr.No. 26-1-2048, Peddabavi Centre, Mini By Pass Raod, Umareddy Gunta, Kondayapalem, Near Vatsalya Orphan agar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the e- auction notice dated 16-05-2025 issued by Respondent No. 4 to auction the Schedule property on 27-06-2025 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same it is further consequentially prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to proceed with the e-auction pending adjudication of O.A. No. 55/2025 before the Hon’ble DRT, Visakhapatnam. lA NO: 1 OF 2n2fi 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 stay the E-Auction Notice dated 16- 05-2025 issued by the Respondent No.4 State Bank of India. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SANKU DURGA RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY Counsel for the Respondents: ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following order: APHC010308812025 Bench Sr.No:-7 [3446] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15578 of 2025 Pinnamaraju @ Nandanavanam Padmavathi and others ...Petitioners Vs. Union of India and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioners Sri Sanku Durga Ramachandra Rao Sri S. Satyanarayana Moorthy Advocate for Respondents CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 26th June 2025 PC : The petitioners seek to prevent the State Bank of India from proceeding further under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) in auctioning the property which the petitioners claim jointly owned by the principal borrower for securing a loan from the respondent Bank. 2. In view of the fact that the SARFAESI Act provides an effective alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which can very well be availed by the petitioners, we do not find any reason to interfere at this stage by invoking our extraordinary jurisdiction considering the ratio of 2 the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of and United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon^. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. 3. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ' (2021) 6 see 771 2 [(2010) 8 see 110: 2010 INSe 428] Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OFFieER //TRUE eOPY// SEeTl To, 1. One CC to Sri. Sanku Durga Ramachandra Rao Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. S Satyanarayana Moorthy Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Additional Solicitor General of India [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies GSC ? HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2025 ORDER WP NO. 15578 OF 2025 I JUL 2025 )| ^vQufrent SectjQuXi^ DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS