JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the orders dt.16-05-2019 in S.A.No.171 of 2016 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad and quash the same on the ground that it was arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of principles of natural justice and also the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') and also Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and consequently declare the possession notice dt.05-02-2016 issued under Section 13(4) of the Act and the sale notice dt.10-01-2016 issued by 1st respondent as null and void and unenforceable.

2. The petitioner No.1 is an Infrastructure Company doing various projects.

3. On its application, the 1st respondent Bank sanctioned Open Cash Credit limited of Rs. 2.40 crores, Working Capital Demand loan limit of Rs. 9.60 crores and Bank Guarantee limit of Rs. 25.00 crores. For these facilities, petitioner Nos.2 to 8 stood as guarantors.

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS

4. According to the petitioner No.1, it had completed projects for APRSCL, Nellore worth Rs. 3.30 crores, APHB Chandanagar worth Rs. 3.85 crores, CMC, Doddaballapur worth Rs. 1.00 crores and was due to receive Rs. 8.15 crores from the said contractors. But there was delay in receiving payments from the respective Governments for the completed projects and so the account of petitioner No.1 Company became irregular. Also certain Bank Guarantees given by the petitioner no.1 had been invoked by the other contracting parties.

5. According to petitioner No.1, it requested the 1st respondent Bank to sanction temporary Over Draft Limit for one year with interest @ 13% p.a. and to reduce the interest rate on Open Cash Credit Limits and Working Capital Demand Loan to 13% and it had proposed to repay the additional temporary Over Draft liability in 6 monthly installments after a moratorium of 6 months.

6. Petitioners allege that the 1st respondent Bank ignored its request and classified the loan accounts of petitioner No.1 as NPA and it issued demand notices dt.01-11-2015 under Section 13(2) of the Act demanding Rs. 35,84,09,534/- with interest from 01-11-2015.

7. According to petitioner No.1, the total Bank Guarantee limit was Rs. 25.00 crores and only Bank Guarantees for an amount of Rs. 8.37 crores were invoked by M/s.SICOM Limited, Mumbai and National Small Industries Corporation Limited and others in relation to works executed for those entities, but the 1st respondent Bank had unlawfully recalled even the uninvoked Bank Guarantee liabilities and that the petitioners were not liable to pay the same.

8. According to petitioner No.1, some of the properties which were given as mortgage to the 1st respondent Bank included agricultural properties apart from other securities, but in the demand notice dt.01-11-2015 issued under Sec.13(2) of the Act, the 1st respondent Bank proposed to initiate action under the Act even with regard to the agricultural lands which are exempted from applicability of provisions of the Act in view of Section 31(i) of the Act.

9. The petitioner No.1 further contended that possession notice under Sec.13(4) of the Act was also issued on 05-02-2016 against the agricultural properties which were mentioned at item Nos.3, 9 to 12 in the said notice and therefore both the notice dt.01-11-2015 issued under Section 13(2) of the Act as well as possession notice dt.05-02-2016 issued under Sec.13(4) of the Act are bad in law.

10. It is contended that the possession notice dt.05-02-2016 issued under Section 13(4) by the 1st respondent Bank stated that possession was already taken on 03-02-2015 of item Nos.1 to 3, on 04-02-2015 of item Nos.4 to 18 and on 05-02-2015 item Nos.9 to 12 were also taken possession though such taking of possession can only be subsequent to issuance of possession notice to the borrower and after affixi