ORDER:- This Court issued Rule nisi on 19.02.2007.

2. Heard Sri C. Kodandaram, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, and Sri Ch. Shiva Reddy representing Sri C.V. Rajeeva Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondents.

3. Sri C. Kondaram, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and also had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant rules governing the field and would maintain that even in the light of Section 64 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 since the process of putting and process of sale had been completed, a right had accrued to the writ petitioner, and hence, the Banking Institution cannot take such a stand so as to avoid the confirmation of sale, and hence, the writ petition to be allowed. The counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.

4. On the contrary, Sri Shiva Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri C.V. Rajeeva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, had taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Rules and would explain that the Forest Officer had conducted the sale, but on verification, it was found by the concerned Committee that all the guarantors were not served and in the light of the same, the Banking Institution had taken such a decision, even otherwise, the directions prayed for in the writ petition cannot be granted and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the counsel.

6. Sri Shabbir Ahmed Khan, the writ petitioner, filed the present writ petition for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing sale certificate in terms of Rule 9 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Rules" for the purpose of convenience) after accepting the balance bid price in terms of the auction sale confirmation letter dated 10.01.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent with respect to the land in Plot No.198, 199, 198/1 and 199/1 in R.s.No.153 and 154 situated at Jawahar Auto Nagar, Patamata, Vijayawada admeasuring an extent of 1997 sq. yards as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to terms of the tender and provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of convenience) and the Rules and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue sale certificate after receiving the balance bid price and pass such suitable orders.

7. The petitioner, in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, averred that the 2nd respondent-the Regional Manager is the authorized Officer appointed under the provisions of the Act for enforcing the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent under section 13(2) read with Rule 3 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder issued demand notice dated 23.08.2005 calling upon Sri K.Venkata Rayudu, Sri K.Kishore, Sri K.Siva Kumar, Smt.K.Pankaja Valli, Sri K.Rama Mohan Rao and Miss P. Radha, all residents of Vijayawada, who were guarantors to M/s. Saswat Agencies, M/s. Rithvik Enterprises and M/s. Prakrit Motors to repay the loan amount. As neither the borrower nor the guarantors paid the amounts, the 2nd respondent took possession of the secured asset in Plot No.198, 199, 198/1 and 199/1 in R.S.No.153 and 154, Jawahar Autonagar, Patamata, Vijayawada in an extent of 1997 sq. yards. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent again in exercise of the power under section 13(4) of the Act read with Rule 8 issued a notice giving 30 days time to the borrower to clear the liabilities and redeem the property mortgaged to the Bank. Further, it is averred that since none of the borrower or guarantors came forward to pay the amounts within the time prescribed under the Act, the 2nd respondent having obtained the estimated value of the mortgaged property proposed to sell the same in exercise of powe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document