THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS WRIT PETITION No.36886 of 2014 Between:
Zoom Colour Lab, Chirala, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Bommisetti Venkata Ratna Gupta PETITIONER AND
1. State Bank of India, Treasury Branch, Guntur, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Authorised Officer, V. Srinivasa Rao, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu) This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in locking the premises bearing Door No.13-3-19 by bringing the petitioners out side the premises forcibly, and the order of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, dated 17.10.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.190 of 2014 directing to take possession of the property from the respondents therein, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition shall be stated as follows.
3. The petitioner is a colour lab established in the premises bearing Door No.13-3-19, which was ordered to be taken possession by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, and that by virtue of a registered lease deed dated 12.10.2001, the petitioner was inducted into possession by the owner of the premises, namely, Smt. Valiveti Rama Devi on a monthly rent of Rs.1,300/- per month. Thereafter, the petitioner invested a huge amount for installing modern equipment and for furnishing the premises. When the owner of the premises tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, it filed a suit in O.S.No.56 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, who by order dated 05.06.2012 in I.A.No.722 of 2012 directed the parties to the suit to maintain status quo. But all of a sudden, the 1st respondent officials came to the premises with police force on 22.11.2014 and asked the petitioner to come out of the premises. It is further stated that the respondents did not give any prior notice before locking the premises and it came to know that as the borrower failed to pay the instalments, the debt was declared as a non- performing Asset, and initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) and that the valuable equipment worth about Rs.50 lakhs belonging to the petitioner were lying in the premises in question, and hence, it prays to issue a Writ of Mandamus.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is only interested in taking out the articles belonging to it worth Rs.50 lakhs, which have been locked by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and hence, the petitioner may be permitted to take out the articles from the premises in question, leaving open the remedies available to it under law.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Bank also did not dispute that the articles belonging to the petitioner were in the premises in question, and submits that the 1st respondent-Bank has no objection to take out the articles belonging to the petitioner from the premises in question.
6. Whether the petitioner is validly inducted or not, whether a notice is required to be given to the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, exercising the powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act or not, and whether the petitioner cannot be evicted except by following due process of law or not, are the questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in this writ petition exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. As can be seen from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, any order passed under Sections 13 or 14 of the SARFAESI Act is appealable under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. As per the language employed in Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – any person aggrieved by the measures taken by the Bank, can make an appeal.
Therefore, the petitioner has to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act so as to work out its remedies.
8. But considering the fact that certain articles belonging to the petitioner were in the premises in question, which was locked by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, we direct the 1st respondent-Bank and also the Advocate Commissioner to open the lock and permit the petitioner to take out all the movables belonging to it in view of the fact that the movables are not mortgaged to the Bank.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.
K.C. BHANU, J.
ANIS, J.
8th December, 2014 Js