Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.

The petitioner herein sought for a Writ of Mandamus for declaring the E-auction notice dated 15.10.2015 issued by the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Secunderabad proposing to sell the immovable property covered by plot No.70 admeasuring 278 square yards situated in survey No.66/6, Ward No.3, Block No.7 in Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, L.B.Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal being contrary to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (henceforth referred to, for brevity, as ‘the Act’) and Rules 8 (6) and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the Canara Bank on behalf of the respondents.

It appears the 1st respondent – Bank has provided certain financial assistance to a company named as M/S Eversure Aqua Solutions Private Limited. The petitioner herein, who claims to be an Ex-serviceman and another person by name Smt. G. Jayamma stood as guarantors for the said loan transaction. As part of this arrangement, immovable property said to be owned by the petitioner herein comprising of Plot No.70 admeasuring 278 square yards situated in Survey No.66/6, Ward No.3, Block No.7 in Mansoorabad village, Saroornagar Mandal, L.B.Nagar Municipality was mortgaged. It is also apt to notice that Mansoorabad village has since now become part of L.B.Nagar Municipal area and L.B.Nagar Municipal area has now become a part of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. This signifies the comparatively high value this immovable property enjoys.

There is no denying the fact that the principal borrower has committed default in making repayment of the loan and other financial assistance availed by it. In those set of circumstances, the 1st respondent – bank has classified the loan account as ‘non performing asset’ and hence initiated measures for securitisation of the loan under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. The demand notice dated 25.01.2014 has not produced the desired result as the borrower and its two guarantors have not repaid the outstanding liability of approximately of Rs.1.50crores. In those set of circumstances, the authorised officer of the 1st respondent – bank, the 2nd respondent herein, has drawn a notice under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 read with Rule 8 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 on 15.10.2015 informing the principal borrower and the two guarantors, including the petitioner herein that possession of the secured asset described in the schedule to the sale notice enclosed thereto has been taken under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act and hence the authorised officer has proposed to sell the assets through e-auction mode, for which purpose a last and final opportunity to discharge the liability in full has been accorded to the principal borrower and the two guarantors, failing which the sale of the secured asset would be processed and undertaken. It is this notice, which triggered the present writ petition.

Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would principally attack the action of the respondents on two fold grounds. The first and foremost is that the statute is intended to protect the interests of the borrowers also apart from trying to protect the interests of financial institutions and hence any measures adopted by the respondents which are likely to diminish the interest of the borrower/guarantor are liable to be viewed strictly and as to whether they are in conformity with the provisions of the Act or not. In case the provisions of the Act have not been strictly complied with, then any such action has to be viewed with disfavour and it is liable to be declared as illegal. The 2nd contention that is urged is that the borrower/guarantor is required to be put on notice with regard to the intended