a; IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMAR (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL ’ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 10864 OF 2025 Between: Narra Raja Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. D.No. 1-166, KoHuru, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh - 522324 ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Morrispet, Tenali, Guntur District, A.P - 522201. 2. M/s. Sri Siva Sivani Brick Works, Rep. by its Propraitor Narra Raghavendra Rao, D.No-1-166, Kolluru, Guntur-522324. ...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 more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam in not passing orders in stay applicaion in lA. No. 1523 of 2025 in SA. No. 396 of 2024 and the action of the 1st respondent in proceeding with e-auction notifying the date of sale as one 25.04.2025 relation to the residential property of the petitioner in located at Door No. 1026/2, 1026/3, 1-134 to an extent of Ac. 0.18 cents or 452 sq. yds situated at Kollur Village and Mandal, Guntru District as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the e-auction notifying the date of sale 25.04.2025 relation to the residential property of the petitioner in located at Door No. 1026/2, 1026/3, 1-134 to as an extent of Ac. 0.18 cents or 452 sq. yds situated at Kollur Village and Mandal, Guntru District. lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings persuant auction sale notification of the 1st respondent notifying the date of sale as 25.04.2025 relation to the residential property of the petitioner located Door No. 1026/2, 1026/3, 1-134 to an extent of Ac. 0.18 cents yds situated at Kollur Village and Mandal, Guntru District, of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C B ADARSH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SMT. V DYUMANI Counsel for the Respondent No.2: The Court made the following: ORDER to e- at or 452 sq. pending disposal APHC010218552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WRIT PETITION NO: 10864/2025 [3483] Between: ...PETITIONER Narra Raja Rao AND ...RESPONDENT{S) Union Bank Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.C B ADARSH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VDYUMANI CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 25.04.2025 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Inaction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam in passing orders in Stay application vide I.A.No.l523 of 2025 in S.A.No.396 of 2024 and the action of respondent no.l in proceeding with e-auction notifying the date of sale as 25.04.2025 in relation to his property, is the grievance of the petitioner. ^C]<£‘R£J ‘.WcpMo. 10864 of2025 1. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: The petitioner stood as guarantor for credit facility availed by respondent no.2 from respondent no. 1-Bank by mortgaging his property. Owing to failure of respondent no.2, the loan account was classified as NPA and pursuantly the respondent no.l bank initiated proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'SARFAESI Act'). The petitioner approached the bank for One-Time Settlement (OTS) and though the bank would be settled through OTS, however, issued assured him that the matter auction sale notice in violation of the Rules framed under SARFAESI Act. The did hot follow the procedure contemplated under law and did not even under Rule-8(6) of the SARFAESI Act and did not afford him redeem the secured asset under Section under Section 13(8) of the bank issue notice chance to Act. Hence the writ petition. 3. Heard Sri C.B.Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The relief sought in the writ petition is that the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not passing orders on the stay petition filed in S.A. and whereas the respondent no.l- Bank is proceeding with the sale of the secured asset. However, the factum of filing S.A. has not been stated in the pleadings. The 9fa^<RCJ W.(P.^oJ0864 of 2025 3 and based on such vague pleadings, . Therefore, this writ petition is liable to pleadings are as vague as they could be this court cannot adjudicate this case be dismissed. is dismissed. There shall be no order as 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is to costs. shall stand closed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// KSECTiON OFFICER To, The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. CG to Sd C B Adarsh Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 1. 2. One 3. One CC to Smt. V Dyumani Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:25/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.10864 of 2025 5 HMAy2n?5 1 Curreni cM»cuon . ^ o DISMISSING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS