APHC010137762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3575]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX WRIT PETITION NO: 7388/2026 Between:

1. M ANIKANTA ALIBILLI, S/O PRAKASA RAO, AGED.29YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO1-625, SIVALAYAM STREET BALIJIPETA, VIZIANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH-535 557. MOB 9293603696, EMAIL MAHESHDARLING003@GMAIL.COM ...PETITIONER AND

1. C HOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER SRI SUDHAKARA RAO, RAJENDRA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P- 530 018.

2. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM DISTRICT, A.P.- 535 501.

3. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. - 522 238.

...RESPONDENT(S):

CORAM:- THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Present:- Mr. J.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Parimi Rama Rayudu, Advocate for respondent No.1.

***

LISA GILL,J.

Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Sec urity Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”), initiated by respondent No.1 against the petitioner.

2. It is pleaded that petitioner availed of loan facility from the respondent company vide account No.HE010BB00000027251 on 03.07.2022;security interest was created in favour of respondent No.1 accordingly. It is pleaded that number of installments were paid regularly by petitioner, however due to certain business exigencies and financial difficulties, petitioner could not discharge some installments on time, leading to his account being declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA). Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 09.04.2025. It is stated that this notice though served upon petitioner was not served upon all the borrowers in accordance with law.

Possession notice was issued on 28.06.2025.

3. It is submitted that respondent No.1 has initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and notice dated 09.03.2026 has been issued, intimating that physical possession of scheduled property would be taken by 16.03.2026.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argues that entire proceedings under SARFAESI Act undertaken against the petitioner are illegal and arbitrary. Notice under Section 13(2) should have been served upon all borrowers. It is to be noted that it is not denied that said notice was duly served upon the present petitioner.

5. Learned counsel further submits that publication of possession notice should have been carried out in a proper manner whereas it was not so done and publication was carried out in a newspaper titled Praja Shakti, which is not one of the leading papers and does not have adequate circulation in the District. Publication is infact made in another District, therefore, entire proceedings for taking over possession are vitiated. Petitioner should have been given a chance to redeem the loan amount before initiating the process of taking over possession. Petitioner had approached respondent No.1 for restructuring of the loan account or for a settlement i.e. a One Time Settlement (OTS) in terms of the policy followed by the respondent No.1 but it appears that respondent No.1 is hell-bent upon taking possession of the property in question. It is thus, prayed that this writ petition be allowed, as prayed for.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the writ petition while submitting that apart from petitioner having an efficacious remedy which he has not availed, there is no merit in this writ petition. Dismissal thereof is sought.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file.

8. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such like circumstances has to be minimal and actuated only