APHC010024402026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3558]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.1695 of 2026 Between:

1. M /S SRI ARUNA MODERN RICE MILL, PROP. MRS, BALAGA USHA RANI W/O BALAGA PAPI NAIDU, ADDAPUSEELA VILLAGE, PARVATHIPURAM, PARVATHIPURAM MANDALAM, MANYAM DISTRICT, PRESENT ADDRESS R/O.110-F, SECTOR-4, UKKUNAGARAM, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530032.

2. B ALAGA PAPI NAIDU, S/O RAMINAIDU, 110-F, SECTOR-4, UKKUNAGARAM, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM -530032.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. T HE AUTHORIZED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT-532001.

2. T HE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, BELAGAM BRANCH, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM DISTRICT-525501.

3. K ARRI KAMESWARA RAO, S/O CHINABABU, NARSIPURAM POST, PARVATHIPURAM MANDALAM, MANYAM DISTRICT-

535522.

4. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STAMPS & REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI- 522237.

5. T HE SUBREGISTRAR, OFFICE OF SUB-REGISTRY, BELAGAM, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT-535522.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SATYANARAYANA DHARA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.1695 of 2026 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy Heard Mr. Dhara Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. V. Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps &

Registration appearing for respondent Nos.4 & 5.

2. Since this writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal where the Securitisation Application filed by them seeking redressal of their grievance is already pending, notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with.

3. The 1^st petitioner is the principal borrower, who availed loan from the Union Bank of India, and the 2^nd petitioner is the guarantor for the said loan transaction. Owing to the fact that they committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the bank has initiated measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) and sold away the secured asset in the public auction. The 3^rd respondent has participated in the said auction and he became the highest bidder and he purchased the property.

4. Challenging the measures initiated by the bank under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners have already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, by way of filing a Securitisation Application. The same is pending adjudication before the Tribunal.

However, the petitioners again approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition on the ground that even though the Securitisation Application filed by them is pending adjudication before the Tribunal, the bank has proceeded to sell away the property in the public auction.

5. When there is no stay granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, nothing prevents the bank from proceeding further to sell the secured asset. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have already filed an application before the Tribunal to implead the auction purchaser, who is the 3^rd respondent herein, in the said Securitisation Application. When that be the case, the petitioners can pursue their remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, where the proceedings are pending adjudication. Having filed the Securitisation Application in the appropriate forum, the petitioners cannot file a writ petition again before this Court and maintain parallel proceedings before this Court and the Tribunal, which is not p