HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.19451 of 2025 1 APHC010384802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WRIT PETITION NO: 19451/2025 Between: 1. SRI GAURANGA ENTERPRISES, REP BY ITS PARTNERS, MR. KODE SASHI KIRAN AND MS. KODE LALITHA SUDHA, D.NO. 3-30- 5/1, 1ST LINE, BRUNDAVAN GARDENS, GUNTUR-522006. 2. DR. KODE SASHI KIRAN,, S/O. KODE SATYA PRASAD, HINDU, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O. VILLA NO.12E, ASST GARDENIA ENCLAVE, RAMAGONDANAHALLI, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560066. 3. .KODE SATYA PRASAD, , S/O. KODE SAMBASIVA RAO, R/O. D.NO. 16-11-16/75, SIRIPURAM COLONY, BEHIND MORE SUPER MARKET, MALAKPET, AMBERPET, HYDERABAD, TELOANGANA- 500036. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, , MAXIMUS ARC LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE 302B, JAIN SADGURU IMAGES CAPITAL PARK, IMAGE GARDEN ROAD, VIP HILLS, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500 081. 2. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, D.NO.3-28-24/7, GROUND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, BRUNDHAVAN GARDENS BRANCH, KUNDULA ROAD, GUNTUR. 3. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR, 31-32- 54, CHITRALAYA ROAD, NEAR LEELAMAHAL ROAD, DABA GARDENS, JAGADAMBA JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P- 530020. ...RESPONDENT(S): HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.19451 of 2025 2 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF Mandamus the action of the respondents number 1 and 2 in taking possession of secured assets on 28.07.2025 or on any subsequent date, admeasuring 380 sq.yds, 379 sq.yds, 1000 sq.yds and 1550 sq.yds (total 3309 sq.yds) which are situated vide T.S.No.37 ward no.5 block no.2 (Present block no12) near D.No. 12-11-1 near Manipuram Bridge, Old Club Road, Kothapeta, Guntur Town, under section 14 of SARFAESI Act, vide order dated 28.06.2025 in CrI.M.P.No. 675/2025 on the file of The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur followed by order of warrant dated 21.07.2025 is being bad, illegal, in gross violation of order of this Honble court in W.P.No. 6249/2025 dated 11.03.2025 and pending proceedings the said S.A.No.150 of 2025 on the file of the Hon’ble DRT, Visakhapatnam and offends Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequentially to set aside the same pending disposal of proceedings in S.A.No. 150/2025 and to pass IA 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 operation of order in CrI.M.P.No.675/2025 dated 28.06.2025 and consequential order of warrant dated 21.07.2025, which are intended to disposes the petitioners from admeasuring 380 sq.yds, 379 sq.yds, 1000 sq.yds and 1550 sq.yds (total 3309 sq.yds) which are situated vide T.S.No.37 ward no.5 block no.2 (Present block no12) near D.No. 12-11-1 near Manipuram Bridge, Old Club Road, Kothapeta, Guntur Town, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V HIMABINDU CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 16.09.2025 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.19451 of 2025 3 ORDER Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the orders dated 28.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.675 of 2025 by the learned Principal Assistant Judge- cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur and the commission warrant dated 21.07.2025 issued pursuant to the said orders, being violative of orders dated 11.03.2025 passed by this court in Writ Petition vide W.P.No.6249 of 2025 and also the proceedings in Securitization Application No.150 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam besides being violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution. 2. Heard Sri V.Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. V.Hima Bindu, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned senior counsel while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that as the bank had deliberately suppressed initiation of the proceedings by the petitioner before this Court as well as before the Debts Recovery Tribunal from being mentioned in the petition filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur, the impugned orders dated 28.06.2025 as well as the commission warrant issued pursuant to the said orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. As could be culled out from the contents of the writ petition and the submissions made by the learned senior counsel, the prime grievance of the HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.19451 of 2025 4 petitioner appears to be that though respondent no.1 is a party to the proceedings in Securitization Application vide S.A.No.150 of 2025 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and also a party in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner before this Court vide W.P.No.6249 of 2025, he misrepresented the facts and stated in the application filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide Crl.M.P.No.675 of 2025 that to his knowledge no case was filed either before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or before this Court and basing on the said misrepresentation orders dated 28.06.2025 were passed appointing an advocate commissioner to take possession of the subject property. Therefore, the orders dated 28.06.2025 appointing advocate commissioner and the warrant issued pursuant to the said orders are illegal, void besides being violation of orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.6249 of 2025, dated 11.03.2025 and also the proceedings pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 5. Earlier, the petitioner filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.6249 of 2025 stating that he filed Securitization Application vide S.A.No.150 of 2025 assailing the sale notice dated 07.02.2025 whereby the auction was scheduled to be held on 12.03.2025 and also filed petition vide I.A.No.936 of 2025 in the said S.A. for grant of stay and the said petition was posted to 17.03.2025, whereas the proposed auction was scheduled on 12.03.2025 and therefore, HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.19451 of 2025 5 sought for a direction to respondent no.1 not to conduct auction till I.A.No.936 of 2025 is decided. This Court vide orders dated 11.03.2025 disposed of the said writ petition directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal to pass appropriate orders in I.A.No.936 of 2025 within a period of six (06) weeks from that day and until such time, though the auction may be carried forward, the same shall not be finalized and status quo shall be maintained with regard to the property in question. 6. The docket proceedings of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.150 of 2025, dated 02.04.2025 shows that on the representation made by the learned counsel for respondent bank that no auction had taken place, the I.A.No.936 of 2025 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Consequently, the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by this Court granting status quo with regard to the possession of the property in question comes to an end. No doubt, the Debts Recovery Tribunal did not pass any interim orders injuncting the secured creditor from continuing the proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’). Therefore, no orders of injunction exist as on the date of filing of the petition vide Crl.M.P.No.675 of 2025 by respondent no.1 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.19451 of 2025 6 7. Admittedly, the respondent no.1 in the petition filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide Crl.M.P.No.675 of 2025 clearly stated that to his knowledge, no application was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or this Court. Whether the same could be a valid ground to term the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as illegal, is to be examined. 8. Section 14 does not explicitly list ‘pending appeals or revisions’ as a specific disclosure requirement. However, the parties approaching any court or quasi-judicial authority have a general duty to disclose all material facts, including any pending litigation, appeals, or revisions related to the subject matter. 9. Be that as it may, as stated supra, no restraint order restraining respondent no.1 from continuing the SARFAESI Act proceedings or taking over possession of the subject property exist as on the date on which the impugned order appointing an advocate commissioner came to be passed. 10. Moreover, section 14 of the SARFAESI Act empowers the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate to assist a secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset. The nature of this power is largely ministerial, aimed at facilitating the recovery process. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is not expected to resolve disputes between the secured HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.19451 of 2025 7 creditor and the borrower and do not have the power to hear objections or counter-arguments from the borrower regarding the validity of the debt or the security interest, adjudicate on the legality of the mortgage or the quantum of the debt and grant a hearing to the borrower or any third party at this stage. 11. In view of the above, in the absence of any order prohibiting the secured creditor from taking over possession of the property exist as on the date of passing the impugned order coupled with the role of Chief Judicial Magistrate being only ministerial and not adjudicatory, the non-disclosure of either pendency of Securitization Application before Debts Recovery Tribunal or regarding disposal of the Writ Petition by this Court would not in any way affect the validity of the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J RR