1 APHC010237582026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 12567/2026 Between: 1. PENUMATSA SARSWATHI, W/O. VENKATA RAMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2-19, MAIN ROAD, GOGANNAMATTAM VILLAGE, MAMIDIKUDURU MANDAL, B.R AMBEDKAR KONASEEM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, Rep.by its Authorized Officer, Tatipaka Branch, Tatipaka, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konaseema District. ...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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the possession notice dated 19-01- 2026 and the warrents issued in CrI. M.P. No.136/2026 on the file of the court of Principle Senior Civil Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram including consequential notice dated 04-04-2026 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violation of provisions of SARFAESI Act and to consequently set aside the same and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 respondent not to dispossess the petitioner in pursuance of warrants issued in CrI.M.P. No.136/2026 on the file of the court of Principle 2 Senior Civil Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SATYANARAYANA DHARA The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA W. P. No.12567 of 2026 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma) Present Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to issue an appropriate Writ or Direction, particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the possession notice dated 19.01.2026 and the warrants issued in CrI.M.P.No.136 of 2026 on the file of the Court of the Principle Senior Civil Judge–cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram including consequential notice dated 04.04.2026 is illegal, arbitrary and also violation of provisions of SARFAESI Act and to consequently set aside the same. 2. The contention of the writ petitioner is that there is no proper compliance with the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) invoked by the respondent Bank. When the respondents has invoked Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 by issuing notice dated 19.11.2025, the Bank required to wait for a period of (60) days mandatory time from the date of service of the said notice before taking any further action. The notice issued in terms of Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 was served on the petitioner on 25.11.2025 and the possession notice was issued on 19.01.2026 without waiting for the mandatory statutory period prescribed under the Act. Therefore, the possession notice itself is not in accordance with law and 4 constitutes a violation of mandatory procedure contemplated. Hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Sri D. Satyanrayana, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that when an efficacious remedy is available, invoking writ jurisdiction is not correct and that the writ petitioner ought to have approached the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), if at all the petitioner has any grievance. 5. Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the urgency of the matter and the financial constraints, age and health condition of the writ petitioner, he was unable to immediately approach the DRT. He further submitted that the legal aspect in the matter can be considered by this Court also. 6. Upon considering the factual scenario and the admitted availability of an alternative statutory remedy, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty, as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is further observed that the respondents shall maintain status quo with regard to alienation, registration, or creation of third-party interests in respect of the subject property for a period of two (02) weeks from today. 5 7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Date: 01.05.2026 Pnr 6 142 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 12567 Of 2026 Dt.01.05.2026 Pnr