APHC010281142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION NO: 14184/2025 Between: 1. SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA AGENCIES, PROPRIETOR FIRM, 2ND FLOOR, VASAVI PHARMA, OPP. AYYAPPA TEMPLE, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, CHITIURI VENKATA NAGABHUSHANAM. 2. CHITIURI VENKATA NAGABHUSHANAM, S/O RAMA NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. G1, SAI RESIDENCY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SME GANNAVARAM BRANCH, STATE BANK OF INDIA, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA DISTR 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may pleased tobe pleased to WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to DECLARE the E 03.05.2025 scheduled to be conducted on 05.06.2025 issued by the respondent officials with respect to residential of 209.50 sq. yards in Door Nos. 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 14184/2025 SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA AGENCIES, PROPRIETOR FIRM, 2ND FLOOR, VASAVI PHARMA, OPP. AYYAPPA TEMPLE, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, CHITIURI VENKATA NAGABHUSHANAM. CHITIURI VENKATA NAGABHUSHANAM, S/O RAMA NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. G1, SAI RESIDENCY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE BRANCH MANAGER, SME GANNAVARAM BRANCH, STATE BANK OF INDIA, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may pleased tobe pleased to WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to DECLARE the E-auction public notice dated 03.05.2025 scheduled to be conducted on 05.06.2025 issued by the respondent officials with respect to residential property situated in an extent of 209.50 sq. yards in Door Nos. 12-116 and 12-117, Old Assessment No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3558] THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA AGENCIES, PROPRIETOR FIRM, 2ND FLOOR, VASAVI PHARMA, OPP. AYYAPPA TEMPLE, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, CHITIURI CHITIURI VENKATA NAGABHUSHANAM, S/O RAMA NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. G1, SAI ...PETITIONER(S) THE BRANCH MANAGER, SME GANNAVARAM BRANCH, STATE ICT. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 tobe pleased to WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate auction public notice dated 03.05.2025 scheduled to be conducted on 05.06.2025 issued by the property situated in an extent 117, Old Assessment No. 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.14184 of 2025 12478, RS. No. 275/1A1 of Akulavari veedhi, Jaggayyapeta, Krishna district, with very lesser Reserve price, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and rules made thereunder and contrary to Articles 14 and 300- A of Constitution of India and consequently SET-ASIDE the E-auction public notice dated 03.05.2025 issued by the respondent officials in the interest of justice and 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 pleased to STAY of all further proceedings pursuant to the E-auction public notice dated 03.05.2025 scheduled to be conducted on 05.06.2025 issued by the respondent officials, in the interest of justice and pass IA 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 pleased to vacate the interim order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No. 14184 of 2025 dt. 05-06-2025 and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SATYANARAYANA DHARA 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.14184 of 2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Vinodini Ruth, learned counsel representing Mr. Satyanarayana Dhara, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State Bank of India. 2. The 1st petitioner is the sole proprietary concern and the 2nd petitioner is the proprietor of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner availed loan from respondent No.1-State Bank of India. It has offered the property in question as security for re-payment of the said loan amount. As the petitioner committed default in payment of the loan amount, the respondents have initiated proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’), against the petitioners, after complying with the procedure contemplated under the Act and brought the house property in question for sale in E-auction. The petitioners have challenged the said E-auction public notice dated 03.05.2025, as per which the auction is scheduled to be held on 05.06.2025, on the ground that the upset price that was fixed for the auction of the house property is on lower side. 3. Earlier, when the writ petition came up for admission, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while ordering notice to the respondents, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions that the petitioners are willing to deposit the outstanding 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.14184 of 2025 amount of Rs.61,14,563/- in four equal monthly installments, directed the respondents not to finalize the auction. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on several occasions from time to time, extending the interim order, but, the petitioners did not pay the outstanding amount and clear the liability to the Bank, as represented on 05.06.2025 at the time of obtaining interim order. Not even a single pie was deposited to show the bonafides of the petitioners to clear the liability with the Bank. Therefore, on 09.10.2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has vacated the interim order dated 05.06.2025 and held that it is open to the respondents to proceed with the matter. 4. Today, when the matter is listed, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners did not deposit the amount. He also submits that the petitioners are not subsequently turning up to give any further instructions to him inspite of fact that the registered letter was addressed to them, which was returned with an endorsement i.e., ‘no sufficient address’. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the proceedings of the auction are stalled because of the pendency of the writ petition. 6. As the petitioners have admittedly committed default in payment of the outstanding dues to the respondents-Bank, the respondents-Bank has sold the secured asset in the auction that was held. Even after several opportunities are given to the petitioners to deposit the balance amount and clear the liability to the Bank, they have failed to avail the same. Therefore, it 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.14184 of 2025 is obvious that, to stall the proceedings of the E-auction the present writ petition has been deliberately filed and they have successfully managed to stall the auction proceedings by way of obtaining interim order. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any valid legal grounds warranting interference in this writ petition. There is no valid material on record that is placed to prove that the upset price was fixed for a lesser price. 7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 06.11.2025 MDP