APHC010242732026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] MONDAY, THE FOURTH 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: 12695/2026 Between: 1. SRI KOLA NARSIMHA RAO, S/O. KOLA PULLAYYA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O D.NO 4-37, PENUGONDA NAGAR, VEMAGIRI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533125. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, DANAVAIPETA BRANCH, D.NO 46-7-17, DANAVAIPETA MAIN ROAD, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-533013. 2. D RAJARATNAM, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.-533101 ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ by declaring action of the Respondent bank in attempting to take possession of the schedule properties through the Advocate Commissioner (2 Respondent) appointed vide order dated 02.02.2026 in CrI.M.P. No.28 of 2026 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravram, contrary to the agreed one time settlement (OTS) of part of the over-draft (OD) facility and the further action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing notice dated 20.04.2026 for taking possession of the said property pursuant to an expired warrant dated 16.03.2026 as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, untenable and contrary to the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and rules framed there under besides being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the 2nd Respondent notice dated 20.04.2026 and pass such 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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to 2nd Respondent notice dated 20.04.2026 and/or pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION No.12695 of 2026 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma) The present Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent–Bank in attempting to take possession through the Advocate Commissioner appointed by order dated 02.02.2026 and further action of the 2nd Respondent-Advocate Commissioner, in issuing notice dated 20.04.2026, pursuant to an expired warrant dated 16.03.2026, as violative and contrary to the provision of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and also to set aside notice dated 20.04.2026. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that, he is the principle borrower, availed loan to a tune of Rs.1,50,00,000,/- from the 1st Respondent-Bank (Overdraft Account) and the same renewed from time to time. One Sri Kola Pullayya and Gundubogula Sada Siva Venkata Suryanarayana, are the guarantors. The petitioner after availing the credit facility, had been repaying the dues regularly without any default till July, 2025. 3. Due to financial constraints and lack of contracts, he became financially crippled and could not repay the overdraft amount and he has requested on 20.05.2025 to Bank to revive the ‘Overdraft Limit’ to Rs.1,00,00,000/- from Rs.1,50,00,000/- and also made request to release the properties of the said guarantors. Thereafter, he has repaid the overdraft amount and also willing to pay Rs.36,39,031/- to bring the overdraft within the limit of one (01) crore. 4. However, the 1st Respondent-Bank without prior intimation issued Demand Notice dated 10.09.2025, in terms of under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, asking the writ petitioner to pay Rs.1,52,50,922/- within a period of sixty (60) days. Thereafter, possession notice dated 28.11.2025 was issued under 13(4) r/w 8(1) of Security (Enforcement) Interest Rules, 2002. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been repaying the overdraft Amount and despite payments, the 1st Respondent-Bank filed Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2026, under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, and warrant was entrusted to the 2nd respondent by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram. Accordingly, the Commissioner issued warrant dated 07.02.2026, proposing to execute the same on 13.02.2026, but the same could not be executed on the same day and again notice was issued dated 20.04.2026, for execution of the warrant. There was no extension of time under the warrant issued by the Court and therefore, the action of the Commissioner is not correct. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for want of time, he could not proceed and approach the DRT and an expired warrant cannot be executed. 7. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent-Bank would submit that the writ petitioner ought to have approached the DRT for appropriate relief and an alternative remedy is available and approaching this Court is not warranted. 8. Answering the same, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 is without the authority and extension of the warrant of the learned Criminal Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District). Therefore, reasonable protection may be extended to the petitioner, till he approaches the DRT Court for necessary reliefs. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, we deem it proper to dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the concerned DRT, for available remedies as per law within a period of three (03) weeks and the respondents are directed to maintain Status-quo, with regard to the proceedings over the property in terms of question of notice for a period of four (04) weeks. 10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Dated: 04.05.2026 CVD