APHC010580352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3561] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 29801/2025 Between: 1. SAGAR SINGH TRACTORS, , REP., BY ITS PROP., R NAGENDRA BABU, S/O RAJAPUTRA SAGAR SINGH, AGED 65 YEARS, R/O D.NO.76-8-9/12A, III FLOOR, FLAT NO.C1, SRI PADMAJA TOWERS, CROMBAY ROAD, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520 012 2. SMT. RAJAPUTRA PADMAJA BAI,, W/O. R. NAGENDRA BABU, AGED 61 YEARS, R/O D.NO.76-8-9/12A, III FLOOR, FLAT NO.CI, SRI PADMAJA TOWERS, CROMBAY ROAD, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520 012 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP., BY IT'S SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI - 110 001 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, (ERSTWHILE CORPORATION BANK), REP., BY IT'S BRANCH MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH, D.NO.12-11-67, HARPER SQUARE, R.R. APPARAO STREET, VIJAYAWADA - 520 001 3. THE RECOVERY CUM AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE CORPORATION BANK) MAIN BRANCH, D.NO.12-11-67, HARPER SQUARE, R.R. APPARAO STREET, VIJAYAWADA - 520 001 ...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 topleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice Dt 26.9.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 under Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 to sell the secured assert on 30.10.2025, as violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India besides being in violation of SARFEASI Act and the Rules on the subject, and consequently direct the respondent bank not to proceed further 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 suspend the Notice Dt:26.09.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 vide Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 pending W.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.M.Uma Devi, learned Central Government Counsel and Sri K.R.Surya Prakash Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners sought declaration that the notice dated 26.09.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent under Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, to sell the secured asset on 30.10.2025, as violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) and the rules made thereunder and sought direction to the respondent Bank not to proceed further. 3. On the advance notice served on Sri K.R.Surya Prakash Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, he opposed the application contending that the petitioners have already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal and filed S.A.No.632 of 2025 challenging the present auction notice and the same stood posted to tomorrow for hearing. 4. Therefore, when the petitioners have already approached the appropriate forum, seeking redressal of their grievance, challenging the impugned notice, they cannot again approach this Court by way of filing writ petition and seek the aforesaid relief. We seriously deprecate such practice of maintaining parallel proceedings both in the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the High Court. The petitioners are absolutely not justified in approaching this Court by way of filing this writ petition without pursuing their S.A. that is already filed in the Debt Recovery Tribunal challenging the same notice. 5. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere and entertain the present writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue their remedy in the S.A. that is already filed and pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. As it is stated that the S.A. stood posted to tomorrow only for hearing, the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall dispose of the stay petition filed in the said S.A., expeditiously, according to law on merits after hearing both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY,J T.C.D.SEKHAR,J To, 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP., BY IT'S SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI - 110 001 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, (ERSTWHILE CORPORATION BANK), REP., BY IT'S BRANCH MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH, D.NO.12-11-67, HARPER SQUARE, R.R. APPARAO STREET, VIJAYAWADA - 520 001 3. THE RECOVERY CUM AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE CORPORATION BANK) MAIN BRANCH, D.NO.12-11-67, HARPER SQUARE, R.R. APPARAO STREET, VIJAYAWADA - 520 001 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT CMRJ ,TCDSJ DATED:29/10/2025 ORDER WP 29801/2025