WP/4796/2026 of DESU KASI VISWANATHAM Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 24 February 2026

1. DESU KASI VISW ABOUT 60 YEARS NAGAR, ANJAIAH R

1. THE UNION OF IN FINANCE, NEW DE

2. STATE BANK OF BRANCH, SECUND TOWERS, OPP GUNFOUNDRY, H AUTHORIZED OFF Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue a writ, o of writ of Certiorari to ca the file of the Chief M District at Ongole and qu 2024 on the file of the Ch Prakasam District at Ong E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBR O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 4796/2026 WANATHAM, S/O.SRI VENKATESW S, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.20-6- ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTR AND NDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY. ELHI. F INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS M DERABAD (04106), 5-9-76, 2ND FLO SBI AMARAVATHI LHO, CHA YDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE FICE ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High order or direction more particularly o all for the records relating to Crl.M.P.N Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Judg uash the Order in Crl.M.P.No.241/202 hief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal gole in the interest of justice DESH

RUARY DRANATH ROY GEDELA WARLU, AGED -30, ISWARYA RIET. ...PETITIONER MINISTRY OF MANAGEMENT OR, PRABHAT APEL ROAD, REP BY ITS SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be ne in the nature No.241/2024 on e of Prakasam 24 dated 11-12- Senior Judge of

IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the Order in Crl.M.P.No.241/2024 dated 11-12-2024 on the file of the Chief Magistrate- cum-Principal Senior Judge of Prakasam District at Ongole pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY

2. A RAVINDRA BABU (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-State Bank of India.

2. Challenging the order dated 11.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.241 of 2024 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, whereby, he has appointed an advocate commissioner in a petition filed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, ‘the Act’) to take possession of the secured asset, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The petitioner, who is the guarantor, seeks to challenge the impugned order of the learned Magistrate only on the ground that no notice was ordered to him before passing the impugned order. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules which mandates that a notice is required to be ordered to the petitioner/guarantor in a petition filed under Section 14 of the Act before the learned Magistrate to take possession of the secured asset. Therefore, when law did not contemplate issuance of notice to the petitioner in the proceedings initiated by the Bank under Section 14 of the Act, the petitioner cannot seek to impeach the impugned order on the ground that no notice was issued to him. In fact, as per the procedure prescribed under law, before initiating the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act, the Bank has to issue notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act to enable the petitioners to discharge the loan amount and they will be put on notice stating that if they fail to discharge the loan amount that the Bank will proceed to take possession of the property to sell the same in the public auction.

4. It is not the case of the petitioner that notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act are not served on him. Therefore, when an opportunity was given to the petitioner by way of serving notices under Sections 13(2) and

13(4) of the Act and when he did not avail the opportunity to repay the borrowed amount, he cannot now seek to impeach the order of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the writ petition lacks merit.

5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 25.02.2026 MDP