APHC010060222026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 4796/2026 Between: 1. DESU KASI VISWANATHAM, S/O.SRI VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.20 NAGAR, ANJAIAH ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRIET. 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY. MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH, SECUNDERABAD (04106), 5 TOWERS, OPP SBI AMARAVATHI LHO, CHAPEL ROAD, GUNFOUNDRY, HYDERAB AUTHORIZED OFFICE 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 to issue a writ, order o of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to Crl.M.P.No.241/2024 on the file of the Chief Magistrate District at Ongole and quash the Order in Crl.M.P.No. 2024 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Prakasam District at Ongole in the interest of justice IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 4796/2026 DESU KASI VISWANATHAM, S/O.SRI VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.20-6- NAGAR, ANJAIAH ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRIET. ...PETITIONER AND THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY. MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH, SECUNDERABAD (04106), 5-9-76, 2ND FLOOR, PRABHAT TOWERS, OPP SBI AMARAVATHI LHO, CHAPEL ROAD, GUNFOUNDRY, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICE ...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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to Crl.M.P.No.241/2024 on the file of the Chief Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Judge of Prakasam District at Ongole and quash the Order in Crl.M.P.No.241/2024 dated 11 2024 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Judge of Prakasam District at Ongole in the interest of justice IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3558] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA DESU KASI VISWANATHAM, S/O.SRI VENKATESWARLU, AGED -30, ISWARYA NAGAR, ANJAIAH ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRIET. ...PETITIONER THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY. MINISTRY OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT 76, 2ND FLOOR, PRABHAT TOWERS, OPP SBI AMARAVATHI LHO, CHAPEL ROAD, AD, TELANGANA STATE REP BY ITS ...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 r direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to Crl.M.P.No.241/2024 on Principal Senior Judge of Prakasam 241/2024 dated 11-12- Principal Senior Judge of 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.4796 of 2026 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the Order in Crl.M.P.No.241/2024 dated 11-12-2024 on the file of the Chief Magistrate- cum-Principal Senior Judge of Prakasam District at Ongole pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY 2. A RAVINDRA BABU (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.4796 of 2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-State Bank of India. 2. Challenging the order dated 11.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.241 of 2024 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, whereby, he has appointed an advocate commissioner in a petition filed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, ‘the Act’) to take possession of the secured asset, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner, who is the guarantor, seeks to challenge the impugned order of the learned Magistrate only on the ground that no notice was ordered to him before passing the impugned order. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules which mandates that a notice is required to be ordered to the petitioner/guarantor in a petition filed under Section 14 of the Act before the learned Magistrate to take possession of the secured asset. Therefore, when law did not contemplate issuance of notice to the petitioner in the proceedings initiated by the Bank under Section 14 of the Act, the petitioner cannot seek to impeach the impugned order on the ground that no notice was issued to him. In fact, as per the procedure prescribed under law, before initiating the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act, the Bank has to issue notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act to enable the petitioners to discharge the loan amount and they will be put on notice stating that if they fail to discharge the loan amount that the Bank will proceed to take possession of the property to sell the same in the public auction. 4. It is not the case of the petitioner that notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act are not served on him. Therefore, when an opportunity was given to the petitioner by way of serving notices under Sections 13(2) and 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.4796 of 2026 13(4) of the Act and when he did not avail the opportunity to repay the borrowed amount, he cannot now seek to impeach the order of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the writ petition lacks merit. 5. Resultantly, 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: 25.02.2026 MDP