Vegi Ramakrishna, vs Government Of India,
2022 Latest Caselaw 456 AP

     HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI


       HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
                               AND
           HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI


               WRIT PETITION No.2153 OF 2022
1. Vegi Ramakrishna, S/o Bullebbai,
   Aged 54 years, Occ: Agriculture,
   R/o. D. No.8-21, Thummuvarri Street,
   Kirlampudi, East Godavari District - 533 431
2. Vegi Rajeswari, W/o. Vegi Ramakrishna,
   Aged 50 years, Occ: House wife,
   R/o. D.no.8-21, Thummuvarri Street,
   Kirlampudi, East Godavari District - 533 431.
                                                   ...   Petitioners
             Versus

1. Government of India, represented by its
   Secretary, Department of Finance, New Delhi
2. Reserve Bank of India, represented by
   Deputy Governor, Hyderabad, Regional Office,
   Saifabad, Hyderabad
3. Karvy Financial Services Limited,
   762, Building No.7, 6th floor,
   Solitire Park, Andheri (E),
   Mumbai - 400093 represented by
   its Authorized Officer
4. Phoenix, ARC Private Limited, 5th floor,
   Dani Corporate Park, 158, C.S.T. Road,
   Kalina, Santhacruse (E), Mumbai - 400098
   represented by its Authorized Officer.
                                              ...    Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. E. Sambasiva Pratap, Advocate

Counsel for respondents : Mr. Jupudi V. K. Yagna Dutt, Advocate, representing Mr. N. Harinath, Assistant Solicitor General

ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 31.01.2022

(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)

Heard Mr. E. Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Jupudi V. K. Yagna Dutt, learned counsel,

representing Mr. N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General,

for the respondent no.1.

2. The petitioners have moved the Court for the following

relief:

" ....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents more particularly 4th respondent in proceeding to take possession and sell 2nd petitioner's house property bearing D.No.8-21, R.S.No.191/2, Block No.7, Thummuvari street, Kirlampudi Village and Mandal, East Godavari District, pending E.P.No.182/2017 before Principal District Court, Rajahmundry and complaint case No.7784/2018 before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gurugaon, Haryana, filed by the 3rd respondent without considering the settlement under O.T.S. Scheme, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the directions of the 2nd respondent under O.T.S. scheme and violation of Article 14, 300-A of Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders....."

3. Respondents no.3 and 4 have taken action against the

petitioners for recovery of loan taken by the petitioners which has

become Non-Performing Asset under the Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 read with the Security Interest (Enforcement)

Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act and

Rules').

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

pursuant to the notice, dated 26.03.2021 issued by the Authorized

Officer of respondent no.4, on 02.04.2021, the petitioners conveyed

their willingness to settle the matter under One Time Settlement

scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'OTS scheme').

5. At this juncture, when the Court called upon the learned

counsel for the petitioners to disclose as to whether any formal

application has been made by the petitioners for any settlement

before the respondents no.3 or 4, learned counsel submitted that

the petitioners have represented in terms of the aforesaid

communication dated 02.04.2021.

6. The notice issued to the petitioners was on 26.03.2021

and thereafter the communication by the petitioners was also on

02.04.2021 that too to the Authorized Officer of respondent no.4,

who is only an officer to implement the recovery action under the

SARFAESI Act and Rules and is not competent to take a decision or

consider proposal under the OTS scheme. Moreover, in the notice

dated 26.03.2021 itself, it was disclosed as to which

authority/person, the petitioners had to represent. The same

admittedly has not been done. Thus, taking an overall view in the

matter, the Court is not inclined to interfere.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However,

it shall open to the petitioners to approach the competent

authority/forum with any proposal they may have with regard to

settlement of the concerned loan which shall be considered on its

own merits. No order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand

disposed of.

________________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J)

________________________ (B. S. BHANUMATHI, J)

MP

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI

WRIT PETITION No.2153 OF 2022

Date : 31-01-2022

MP