APHC010444852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WRIT PETITION NO: 22603/2025 Between: 1. SRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA RAW AND BOILED RICE MILL, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, KONJETI HANUMANTHA RAO S/O ANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O.RICE MILL COMPLEX, ALLIPURAM VILLAGE, NELLORE. 2. KONJETI HEMA MAINI, W/O. KONJETI HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/O. D.NO.4 SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 1. INDIAN BANK, Nellore Branch, Near Gandhi Statute, Sai Viswanadha Shopping complex, 1st floor. Trunk Road, Nellore Nellore@indianbank.co.in Rep. by its Authorized Officer. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in trying to take phy possession of the mortgaged properties pursuant to the Notice given by the Advocate Commissioner dt.29.07.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to take physical possession of the mortgag Commissioner notice dt.29.07.2025 by setting aside the Orders of DRT Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.2987/2025 in S.A.No.56/2025 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WRIT PETITION NO: 22603/2025 SRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA RAW AND BOILED RICE MILL, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, KONJETI HANUMANTHA RAO S/O ANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O.RICE MILL COMPLEX, ALLIPURAM VILLAGE, NELLORE. KONJETI HEMA MAINI, W/O. KONJETI HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/O. D.NO.4-1-695, USMANSAHEBPET, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND INDIAN BANK, Nellore Branch, Near Gandhi Statute, Sai Viswanadha Shopping complex, 1st floor. Trunk Road, Nellore -524 001 email Nellore@indianbank.co.in Rep. by its Authorized Officer. ...RESPONDENT 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 topleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in trying to take phy possession of the mortgaged properties pursuant to the Notice given by the Advocate Commissioner dt.29.07.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to take physical possession of the mortgaged properties pursuant to the Advocate Commissioner notice dt.29.07.2025 by setting aside the Orders of DRT Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.2987/2025 in S.A.No.56/2025. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3483] SRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA RAW AND BOILED RICE MILL, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, KONJETI HANUMANTHA RAO S/O ANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O.RICE MILL COMPLEX, KONJETI HEMA MAINI, W/O. KONJETI HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED 695, USMANSAHEBPET, NELLORE, ...PETITIONER(S) INDIAN BANK, Nellore Branch, Near Gandhi Statute, Sai Viswanadha 524 001 email ...RESPONDENT India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in trying to take physical possession of the mortgaged properties pursuant to the Notice given by the Advocate Commissioner dt.29.07.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to take physical ed properties pursuant to the Advocate Commissioner notice dt.29.07.2025 by setting aside the Orders of DRT HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.22603 of 2025 2 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 pleased to direct the respondents not to take physical possession of the mortgaged properties pursuant to the Advocate Commissioner notice dt.29.07.2025 by suspending the Orders of DRT Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.2987/2025 in S.A.No.56/2025 pending disposal of the Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SREEDHAR VALIVETI The Court made the following: CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 22.08.2025 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the action of the respondent Bank in trying to take physical possession of the mortgaged properties pursuant to the notice of the Advocate Commissioner dated 29.07.2025 and sought to set aside the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.2987 of 2025 in Securitization Application No.56 of 2025. HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.22603 of 2025 3 2. The contents of the Writ Petition would indicate that pursuant to classification of the petitioner’s loan accounts as Non Performing Assets, after issuance of demand notice, the respondent bank initiated measures under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’). That the Writ Petition vide W.P.No.3987/2018 filed by the petitioners alleging that the bank had initiated the measures for taking physical possession of the property even before completion of the statutory period, was allowed declaring the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as illegal. Pending disposal of the said writ petition, as the bank had issued possession notice dated 28.02.2018, the petitioners filed Securitization Application vide S.A.No.126 of 2018 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the bank to follow the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3987 of 2018. Thereafter, the respondent bank, without issuing any fresh demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, straight away issued possession notice on 10.12.2024, which was not published in two leading newspapers as required under law and moreover the said notice was not affixed on all items of the schedule mentioned property. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.22603 of 2025 4 S.A.No.56 of 2025. Thereafter, on 10.01.2025, the bank issued e-auction sale notice, however auction could not be held in pursuance thereof. Subsequently, the bank filed Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2025 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, SPSR Nellore District appointed an Advocate commissioner, who had issued notice to vacate the schedule mentioned properties within seven (07) days. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2987 of 2025 in S.A.No.56 of 2025 to say all further proceedings in taking physical possession of the schedule mentioned property pursuant notice of Advocate Commissioner, but the said application was erroneously dismissed by Debts Recovery Tribunal on 14.08.2025. Alleging that there is violation of procedure contemplated under SARFAESI Act in issuing possession notice dated 10.12.2024 without giving any fresh demand notice and further the possession notice was neither published in two leading news papers nor affixed on the schedule properties as required under law, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Sreedhar Valiveti, learned Standing Counsel for respondent bank. 4. Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, would contend that the writ petition vide W.P.No.3987 of 2018 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.22603 of 2025 5 filed by the petitioner was allowed declaring the proceedings initiated by the bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and thereafter the bank, without issuing any fresh demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, had straight away issued possession notice dated 10.12.2024 which was neither published nor affixed on schedule mentioned property and therefore, there is flagrant infraction of the procedure contemplated under law and hence, the notice dated 29.07.2025 issued by the advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that he would take over possession of the property is liable to be set aside so also the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in I.A.No.2987 of 2025 in S.A.No.56 of 2025. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 5. Sri Sreedhar Valiveti, learned Standing, would contend that the petitioner had never challenged the validity of demand notice issued under Section 13(2) dated 01.11.2017 in earlier writ petition filed by him vide W.P.No.3987 of 2018 and therefore, the bank need not again issue any fresh demand notice and hence the bank had straight away issued possession notice dated 10.12.2024. He would further contend that possession notice was published in two leading bilingual newspapers and they were affixed on HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.22603 of 2025 6 the properties covered under the possession notice as mandated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. There was no violation of any of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act or Rules as alleged by the petitioner. The Writ Petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The material would disclose that earlier, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.3987 of 2018 questioning the action of the bank in initiating steps under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act even before expiry of the statutorily stipulated sixty (60) days mentioned in demand notice dated 01.11.2017 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for repayment of the dues or for submissions of objections/ representation. A coordinate Bench of this Court, considering the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank that the bank had committed a mistake in taking steps under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before expiry of the stipulated sixty (60) days in terms of Section 13(2) of the Act, had allowed the said writ petition declaring the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.15 of 2018 on the file of the HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.22603 of 2025 7 learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, SPSR Nellore District, as illegal and unsustainable. 8. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the validity of the demand notice dated 01.11.2017 was neither questioned nor was declared to be invalid or unsustainable by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition initiated by the petitioner. Therefore, issuance of fresh demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is not necessary. Hence, the possession notice dated 10.12.2024 cannot be said to be illegal for want of issuance of fresh demand notice. 9. Coming to the next contention, the respondent bank had emphatically denied the contention of the petitioner that possession notice was neither published nor affixed on the mortgaged properties. It is the specific contention of the respondent bank that possession notice dated 10.12.2024 was published in two leading bilingual newspapers besides affixing the same on the properties mentioned therein. The petitioner did not choose to prefer any appeal against the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in I.A.No.2987 of 2025 in S.A.No.56 of 2025. Further, except seeking to set aside the said order, the petitioner did not specifically set out the HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.22603 of 2025 8 grounds as to why the said order warrants this Court’s interference. Therefore, the said relief cannot be granted. 10. In view of the above, there is neither irregularity nor procedural infraction of any procedure contemplated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in issuing possession notice. The writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J RR