IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE . i 5’/ nt AP PRESENT HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 135 OF 2025 Between; Panchakarla Ramesh Babu, S/o P. Panduranga Rao, Aged about 60 years, Occ; Business, R/o D.No. 15-14-13, SF-2, Sai Sree Vihar, Krishna Nagar Road, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-530002 ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union Bank of India, Stressed Asset Management Branch, Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Andhra Bank Building, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad- 500095, Rep by its Authorised Officer. 2. Union Bank of India, Seethammadhara Branch, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-523247, Rep by its Branch Manager. 3. M/s. Haigreeva Infratech Projects Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. Chilukuri Jagadeeswardu, Flat 101 and 102 Block No.7, Paras Paradise, Beside BPCL Petrol Bunk, Indira Nagar, Old Dairy Farm, Visakhapatnam-40 4. The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate at Machilipatnam, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus A.To declare the action of one more ¥ the 1st Respondent Bank in initiating proceedings of Section 14 of the ^ 'SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the Petitioner herein in the respect of the i^ential building admeasuring an extent of 808 Sq.Yards situated in RS MBSSj* D.No.20/118-4-1, Gandhinagar, Machavaram, Machilipatnam, Krishpy District as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, and ■30^^ of the Constitution of India, and B.To declare the action of the 4th Respondent in proceeding with Section 14 petition filed by the 1st Respondent Bank in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2024 as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and C.Consequently to set aside the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate at Machilipatnam in C.F.No.279 of 2023 in Crl.M.P.No.l 1 of 2024 as being irrational, illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Article 14, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and in violation of provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, rules in vogue and D. Consequently to set aside the proceedings of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 initiated by the 1st Respondent Bank against the Petitioner herein in the respect of the residential building admeasuring an extent of 808 Sq.Yards situated in RS No.385, D.No.20/118-4-1 Gandhinagar, Machavaram, Machilipatnam, Krishna District as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 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 order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate at Machilipatnam in C.F.No.279 of 2023 in Crl.M.P.No.l 1 of 2024. # lA NO: 2 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 direct the Respondents not to interfere with the possession and- enjoyment of the Petitioner over the residential building admeasuring an extent of 808 Sq.Yards situated in RS No.385, D.No.20/118-4-1, Gandhinagar, Machavaram, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K S MURTHY Senior Counsel appearing for SRI N ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: — The Court made the following: ORDER Bench Sr.No:-lS [3483] APHC010003802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 135 of 2025 / Panchakarla Ramesh Babu ...Petitioner f Vs. Union Bank of India and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for petitioner Sri K. S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri N. Ashwani Kumar. Advocate for respondents None CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 7th January 2025 PC : The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). 2. Considering the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.,^ whereby the Apex Court had reiterated the principle that when an alternate remedy was available to a person, the resort to extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not permitted unless the Court was satisfied that the case of the petitioner fell within any of the exceptions which had been crystallized by the Apex Court as under:- 1 (2021) 6 see 771 2 “27.3. 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 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.” Reference in this regard can also be made to the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon^ wherein the Apex Court held as under:- “55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement 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. ” 3. In view of the fact that an efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioner and the petitioner has been unable to bring the present case within the exceptions carved out in Radha Krishan Industries’s case, we deem it appropriate that the petitioner resorts to avail the alternate remedy. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. 5. ^ [(2010) 8 see 110 : 2010 INSe 428] Sd/- V SAVITRI GOWRI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE eOPY// SECTTON OFFIGER To, 1. One CC to Sri N Ashwani Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 2. Three CD Copies TF \ HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.135 of 2025 X 13 MAR 2025 ^ . Current Section ^ s>»i DISMISSING THE W.P. AS WITHDRAWN, WITHOUT COSTS