APHC010661812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION NO: 34148/2025 Between: 1. M/S REDDY RAW RICE MILL, JAIADANKI, JALADANKI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.RAGHAVA REDDY. 1. THE CANARA BANK, SPECIALIZED ASSETS RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH (SPECIALIZED ARM BRANCH) 7 ROADS CIRCLE, CANARA BANK BUILDING, FLOOR, KADAPA, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. 2. THE CANARA BANK, KAVALI DISTRICT. 3. THE CANARA BANK, SPECIALIZED ASSET RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH (SPECIALIZED ARM BRANCH), KVC ARCADE, 3RD FLOOR, 13 TIRUPATI, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. Petition under Article 226 of the Consti 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 proposing the mortgaged properties on 10.12.2025 pursuant to the notice issued to the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 34148/2025 M/S REDDY RAW RICE MILL, JAIADANKI, JALADANKI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.RAGHAVA REDDY. ...PETITIONER AND THE CANARA BANK, SPECIALIZED ASSETS RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH (SPECIALIZED ARM BRANCH) 7 ROADS CIRCLE, CANARA BANK BUILDING, FLOOR, KADAPA, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. THE CANARA BANK, KAVALI-1 BRANCH, KAVALI, SPSR NELLORE HE CANARA BANK, SPECIALIZED ASSET RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH (SPECIALIZED ARM BRANCH), KVC ARCADE, 3RD FLOOR, 13-1, RC ROAD, VANI NAGAR, AVILALA, TIRUPATI, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. ...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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in proposing the mortgaged properties on 10.12.2025 pursuant to the notice issued to the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3558] THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA M/S REDDY RAW RICE MILL, JAIADANKI, JALADANKI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ...PETITIONER THE CANARA BANK, SPECIALIZED ASSETS RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH (SPECIALIZED ARM BRANCH) 7 ROADS CIRCLE, CANARA BANK BUILDING, FLOOR, KADAPA, REP. BY ITS 1 BRANCH, KAVALI, SPSR NELLORE HE CANARA BANK, SPECIALIZED ASSET RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH (SPECIALIZED ARM BRANCH), KVC 1, RC ROAD, VANI NAGAR, AVILALA, ...RESPONDENT(S): tution 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 proposing to auction the mortgaged properties on 10.12.2025 pursuant to the notice issued to the 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.34148 of 2025 petitioner dated 14.11.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, mala-fide and in violation of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and consequently set aside the auction notice dated 14.11.2025 indicating the proposed auction date as 10.12.2025 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 the auction scheduled to be conducted on 10.12.2025 by the respondent herein in pursuance of auction notice issued to the petitioner dated 14.11.2025 issued by the respondent bank, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.34148 of 2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This writ petition for Mandamus is filed to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to auction the mortgaged properties pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioner which is dated 14.11.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and violative of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, ‘the Act’) and prayed to set-aside the auction notice. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is the principal borrower who has availed loan from the 2nd respondent-Bank and offered its immovable property as a security for repayment of the loan amount. As it committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the Bank has initiated measures under the Act to sell the secured asset for realization of the loan amount. When the process was initiated for sale of the secured asset, earlier, the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal and filed an application under Section 17 of the Act, challenging the said measures initiated by the Bank under the Act. It was still pending adjudication before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. But, the auction could not take place as no bidders came forward to participate in the auction. Now again the Bank has initiated the process to sell the secured asset in the auction. It is the said notice dated 14.11.2025 issued for sale of the secured asset that is now questioned in this writ petition. 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.34148 of 2025 4. We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and we have gone through the contentions urged in the writ petition challenging the legal validity of the said impugned notice. We do not find any merit in the grounds urged in the writ petition challenging the impugned notice. The only contention now raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier when the insurance company did not indemnify the loan amount by way of paying the same to the Bank that the petitioner has approached the Consumer Forum and the Consumer Forum has directed the insurance company to indemnify the loan amount and pay the same to the Bank. But, the insurance company preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has granted stay of the impugned order subject to the insurance company depositing 50% of the amount awarded by the Consumer Forum and the said amount is still lying with the Supreme Court and as it is not released that the petitioner could not repay the loan amount. But, that is not a valid ground to challenge the validity of the impugned sale notice. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue its remedy before the Supreme Court for withdrawing the said 50% amount awarded by the Consumer Forum or for disposal of the appeal before the Supreme Court and clear the outstanding amount payable to the Bank. But, on that ground the petitioner cannot seek to stall the sale proceedings initiated by the Bank for realization of the loan amount which is the public money. 5. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the violation of the procedure contemplated under the Act in issuing the sale notice, it has to pursue its 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.34148 of 2025 remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of challenging the same by initiating fresh proceedings, questioning the present sale notice. So, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain this writ petition. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of its grievance, which is an appropriate forum and seek remedy before the said forum. The petitioner is permitted to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal within 15 days from date of this order. Till such time, there shall be an interim direction of staying the sale notice dated 14.11.2025. If the petitioner fails to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the time stipulated above, the interim order stands vacated without any further reference to this Court. 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: 09.12.2025 MDP