WP/19880/2025 of CHALLA ROSHANAMMA Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 6 November 2025

1. CHALLA ROSHANA DOOR NO. 2-372 GUDURU VILLAGE SPSR NELLORE D

1. THE UNION OF MINISTRY OF FIN DELETED FROM C.O.DT.07.08.2025

2. M/S AADHAR HOU DIRECTOR, CORP VESTERN EXPRES MUMBAI., MAHRAS

3. M/S AADHAR HOU MANAGER AND A BHASKAR, 2ND FL 140, BEHIND VENK Petition under Articl circumstances stated in E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 19880/2025 AMMA, W/O VENKAIAH, AGED ABO 2, CHIMPIRI NAIDU KALAVAKAT E, GUDURU MUNICIPALITY, GUDU ISTRICT. AND INDIA, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL NANCE, NEW DELHI. RESPONDEN THE ARRAY OF RESPONDEN . SING FINANCE LIMITED, REP.BY IT ORATE OFFICE 802 NATARAJ BYE SS HIGHWAY, SIR M.V.ROAD, AN SHTRA. USING FINANCE LIMITED, REP.BY UTHORIZED OFFICER, THUMULU LOOR, PABOLU PLAZA, NEW DO KATA RAMANA HOTEL, POGATHOT ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High DESH

R DRANATH ROY GEDELA UT 75 YEARS, TTA, WEST URU MANDAL, ...PETITIONER SECRETARY, NT NO.1 WAS NTS AS PER TS MANAGING E RUSTHUMJI, NDHERI EAST, Y ITS BRANCH RI JAYENDRA OOR NO. 16-4- TA, NELLORE. SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be pleased topleased to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction calling for the records and Quash the proceedings of the Honble Chief judicial Magistrate at SPSR Nellore District, passed in CrI MP No 57/2025 in CF No 59/2025 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India apart of being violative of principles of Natural Justice and consequently directing the Respondent No.1 to make an enquiry with regard to the forging of signatures of the Petitioner and thereby creating the Loan Agreement and proceeding under SARFAESI and take appropriate action against the Respondents No 2 to 3 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Pleased to dispense with the filing of the Certified Copy of the Orders in CrI.M.P. No 57 of 2025 in C.F.No. 59 /2025 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Nellore, dt: 25.06.2025 appointing the Advocate- Commissioner and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 pleased to Stay of the Operation of the Orders in CrI.M.P. 57 of 2025 in C.F.No. 59 /2025 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Nellore dt: 25.06.2025 pending disposal of the main Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. CH MARKONDAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. A person by name Challa Parandhamaiah, who is the son of the petitioner herein, is the principal borrower, who availed loan from respondent No.2-M/s. Aadhar Housing Finance Limited. The petitioner, who is the original owner of the property in question has executed a gift deed in favour of her son, who is the principal borrower and by virtue of the said gift deed executed in his favour, he became the absolute owner of the said property. He has mortgaged the said property as a principal borrower as a security for the loan availed by him to respondent No.2. As he committed default in re-payment of the loan amount, respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’). Challenging the said proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act by respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. The petitioner is not the borrower and she is no way concerned with the SARFAESI proceedings initiated against the principal borrower. Alleging that her signature is forged in the loan agreement as a co-obligator that the SARFAESI proceedings are initiated against the principal borrower, she is seeking to challenge the impugned proceedings. When the petitioner is not the owner of the property in question and as no proceedings are initiated against her, she cannot challenge the said proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act and it is for the principal borrower against whom the proceedings are initiated and whose property is sought to be taken possession is the proper person, who has to challenge the said proceedings, if he feels aggrieved by the same. He has no grievance and he has not come before the Court challenging the said proceedings. Therefore, it is obvious that the petitioner is set up to challenge the said proceedings without the principal borrower coming forward to challenge the said proceedings. So, in the said facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to entertain this writ petition.

4. Therefore, 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: 07.11.2025 MDP