ORDER:

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.

The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of 1st respondent-bank in threatening to dispossess and take physical possession of petitioner’s leasehold property of office-cum-industrial building (for short, ‘the schedule property’), pursuant to the order dated 22.04.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.1072/2022 in C.F.No.390/2022 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, and notice of warrant dated 08.06.2022 issued by the Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the subject property without considering the representation of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and devoid of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent-Bank not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the schedule property.

2. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:

(a) The petitioner is the proprietor of NAVATA ECO BRICKS and running brick industry under the name and style of ‘NAVATA ECO BRICKS’ and also aquaculture in the schedule property which was obtained by the petitioner from 5th respondent under a registered Lease Deed dated 12.03.2015 vide document No.1684/2015. The duration of the lease is for eight years commencing from 01.12.2014 to 30.11.2022.

(b) While so, a notice dated 08.06.2022 along with a copy of order dated 22.04.2022 in Crl.MP.No.1078/2022 in C.F.No.390/2022 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada was issued by the Advocate Commissioner to the petitioner informing that by virtue of the Court orders he was proposing to take physical possession of the schedule property and requested the petitioner to vacate the schedule property on or before 16.06.2022. The petitioner and her staff informed about the registered lease obtained by the petitioner and their conducting brick industry and aquaculture in the subject property and also about the subsistence of Lease Deed till 30.11.2022. However, the Advocate Commissioner did not heed to their words and insisted them to vacate the schedule property. There is any amount of threat of dispossession looming large on the petitioner. The intended action is violative of the canons of the provisions contained in the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’).

Hence the writ petition.

3. The 1st respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition inter alia contending thus:

(a) The 3rd respondent, who borrowed loan from the 1st respondent-bank, is none other than the husband of writ petitioner. The 5th respondent, who is one of the guarantors, is the father of writ petitioner. Thus, the writ petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 are all family members. The 2nd respondent is R.G. Constructions and 4th respondent is its Managing Partner.

(b) While so, the 2nd respondent / borrower was sanctioned a term loan of Rs.10.00 Cr. on 07.04.2017 for development and construction of residential apartment named as ‘Euphoria Lifestyle Apartments’ against the security of the subject property. On failure of the 2nd respondent to repay the loan, its account was declared as NPA and the 1st respondent-bank filed O.A.No.1183/2018 against respondents 2 to 5 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and said O.A. was allowed on 29.07.2021. Thereafter, the 1st respondent took the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and issued possession notice with regard to the secured assets and a e-auction notice dated 18.12.2018 was also issued.

(c) Challenging the said notice, the 2nd respondent filed W.P.No.213/2019 contending that the 2nd respondent is a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME) and the bank has not extended benefits available to MSME enterprise as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

(d) Pending the above writ petition, the 2nd respondent filed another W.P.No.919/2019 challenging the decision of 1st respondent in not extendi