1

Date of reserved for orders : 07.05.2026

Date of pronouncement : 10.07.2026

Date of uploading : 10.07.2026

APHC010076542025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3545]

FRIDAY, THE 10

th

DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

WRIT PETITION NO: 3973/2025

Between:

1. M/s.BHEEM ECO BUILD TECH, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,

SMT.POLLA NAGA SUDHA RANI, W/O. POLLA AMAR, AGED ABOUT

35 YEARS, OCC:Business, O/o. R.S. NO. 514 AND 515, TURLAPADU

VILLAGE, CHANDARLAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, NOW

NTR DISTRICT, A.P., PIN 521183

...PETITIONER

AND

1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, INDIA.

2. CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, 112, J.C. ROAD, BANGIORE -560002, KARNATAKA

STATE.

3. CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL

MANAGER, SRINIVASAILAGAR BANK COLONY, VIJAYAWADA ,

KRISHNA DISTRICT, NOW NTR DISTRICT, A.P.

4. CANARA BANK, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, JAGGAYYAPET

BRANCH, JAGGAYYAPET, KRISHNA DISTRICT, NOW NTR

DISTRICT, A.P.

5. SRI VATTIKUNTA SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED

ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. KOMMINENI ESTATES,

NEAR GANDHI STATUE, KORITEPADU VILLAGE, GUNTUR -522007,

GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

2

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M KISHORE BABU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. AISHWARYA NAGULA

2. Pasala Ponna Rao, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

3. T B L MURTHY

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

W. P. No.3973 of 2025

O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma)

Introductory:-

This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to issue an order or direction,

preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the

respondent-Bank in issuing the letter, dated 29.01.2025 and trying to sell or

shift by dismantling the Non-hypothecated Machinery etc., items belonging to

the petitioner, pending S.A. proceedings vide application Reference No.

5604963017, dated 29.01.2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT),

Visakhapatnam, A.P., , without considering representation of the petitioner,

dated 07.02.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and also violative of

provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, and consequently, direct the

respondent-Bank not to Sell or shift by dismantling the Non-hypothecated

Machinery and etc., items, belonging to the petitioner.

Case of the petitioner:-

2. [i] The petitioner is Proprietor of M/s.Bheem Eco Build Tech.,

Turlapadu Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal, NTR District., A.P., and absolute

owner of the subject property i.e., land admeasuring 8905.60 Sq. Yds. along

with shed and machinery, in Survey Nos. 514 and 515 situated at Turlapadu

4

Village. The petitioner availed (3) loans vide MSME Loan Account No.

3973201000070, dated 25.03.2017 i.e.. (1) Rs. 1.25 Crores, (2) Rs. 20 Lakhs

and (3) Rs.20 Lakhs, in total Rs.1.65 Crores from the 4

th

respondent Bank.

(ii) All of sudden, MSME loan account of the writ petitioner was

treated as NPA and possession Notice, dated 11.01.2024 was issued and E-

Auction Sale Notice, dated 28.03.2024 was served to the petitioner, fixing the

value of the immovable properties at Rs.66,59,044/- as against actual value of

more than Rs.5 Crores.

(iii) The petitioner paid more than Rs.2 Crores by way of instalments

to the 4

th

Respondent Bank, there is outstanding amount of Rs.66,59,044/- as

on 29.04.2024. She requested for regularising her account by submitting a

letter dated 22.01.2024 to the 4

th

respondent Bank. She has also made a

representation, dated 23.04.2024 indicating the Market Value of the property

as Rs.5 Crores, and the Card Value is Rs.2,08,59,980/- without machinery

cost, but the Bank has proceeded to fix the Reserve Price is Rs.1,14,25,000/-,

which is very low.

(iv) The 5

th

(un-official) respondent was declared as successful

bidder. The circular instructions of the Bank are that the employees of the

Bank or panel advocates of the bank, even ex-employees cannot participate in

the E-auction, whereas the 5

th

respondent is an ex- employee of the bank,

debarred from participating in the auction. The representation of the petitioner

5

was not considered by the 4

th

respondent and the machinery value is more

than Rs.42,00,000/-.

(v) The 4

th

respondent issued a letter dated 29.01.2025 received on

30.02.2025 proposing to sell or shift by dismantling the non-hypothecated

Machinery etc., without considering representation of the petitioner. Hence,

constrained to file the present Writ Petition.

3. Respondent No.1 is a proforma party.

Contention of the respondents 2 to 4:-

4. [i] The loans availed by the petitioner are as follows:

Sl. No. Loan A/c Nature of loan/limit Loan amount

1 3973766000001 MSME-TL Rs.1,25,00,000.00

2 3973746000002 MSME-TL Rs.20,00,000.00

3. 3973755000244 MSME-TL Rs.20,00,000.00

4 3973603000033 CANARA VEHICLE Rs.6,65,000.00

[ii] The accounts were irregular since 11.08.2022, hence, slipped into

NPA. Demand Notice dated 15.09.2023, possession Notice, dated 11.01.2024

and thereafter, a Sale Notice dated 28.03.2024 were issued. Sale Certificate

27.05.2024 was issued to the successful bidder-Sri Vattikunta Sambasiva

Rao, [respondent No.5] on payment of the entire amount. An amount of

Rs.35 lakhs was adjusted towards the borrower's accounts. A letter was

addressed to the writ petitioner to collect his non-hypothecated goods,

machinery etc., but the petitioner did not collect the same.

6

[iii] Writ petitioner submitted a letter informing that movable property

situated in the Factory premises were also sold to Vattikunta Sambasiva Rao

on 27.05.2024 and received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in full and final

settlement stating she has no claim over the movable property. The petitioner

also submitted a letter to the auction Purchaser which was executed on Non-

Judicial Stamp Paper worth Rs. 100/- duly attested by Notary.

[iv] Subsequently, the successful bidder submitted a letter dated

01.09.2024 to the bank, informing that the Agreement made between him and

the borrower for purchasing the movable property was cancelled and

requested the bank to remove the machinery and movable items lying in the

Unit and hand over the physical possession.

[v] The Branch has written a letter dated 29.01.2025 to the petitioner

requesting her to remove the un-hypothecated machinery and movable items,

otherwise the Bank will shift/sell the machinery by conducting a Panchanama

and adjust the sale amount to the credit of loan account and towards the

charges incurred by the Bank.

[vi] The 4

th

respondent – Bank had credited the surplus amount of

Rs.42,47,000/- on 28.05.2024 into the account of the petitioner. Out of the

said surplus amount, an amount of Rs.32,40,000/- was debited on 01.06.2024

and utilized by the petitioner (amount transferred to the account of the

husband of the proprietor of the Petitioner) without any objection, which clearly

establishes that the petitioner had accepted the sale of immovable property to

7

the respondent No.5. It is also submitted by the Bank that the petitioner has

submitted a written, stamped and notarized declaration dated 27.05.2024 for

handing over the premises along with movables situated in the premises.

Hence, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

[viii] Further, the S.A. referred by the petitioner, is un-numbered and

un-admitted by the DRT is contrary to the notarized and stamped affidavit

dated 27.05.2024 of the petitioner. The petitioner is duty bound to collect his

non-hypothecated goods and machinery. Therefore, prayed that petition is

liable to be dismissed.

Contention of the respondent No.5:-

5. The contention of the respondent No.5 is that sale consideration was

parted with the Bank, which was adjusted towards the loan dues, and

possession of the subject property was handed over to the respondent No.5.

In respect of the objection raised by the registering authorities in refusing to

register the subject property, respondent No.5 has filed the Writ Petition

Nos.14184 of 2024, in which the petitioner has filed an application for

impleadment for impleading himself. The petitioner has also filed another Writ

Petition i.e., W.P.No.18523 of 2024 and the same was disposed of, observing

that the petitioner does have remedy before the DRT, which can be availed by

him.

8

Rejoinder of the Writ Petitioner:-

6. The writ petitioner in the rejoinder did not state anything new except

admitting the sale conducted and the letter issued by the Bank for removal of

un-hypothecated machinery and submission of a declaration on non-judicial

stamp paper attested by a Notary.

7. Heard both sides extensively.

8. Perused the record.

Analysis:-

9. From the above written and oral contentions, the following aspects are

clear:-

(i) The writ petitioner is the borrower.

(ii) The loan account of the writ petitioner was declared as a Non-

Performing Asset (NPA).

(iii) Proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act were

initiated for enforcement of sale etc., of the secured property.

(iv) The writ petitioner has earlier moved this Court by way of Writ

Petition No.18523 of 2024 and the same were disposed of, observing

that the petitioner has alternative remedy.

(v) There was movable property (un-auctioned) available in the

premises and between the borrower and the auction purchaser there

was a dealing and the same could not be materialised.

9

(vi) The Bank advised the borrower/writ petitioner to remove the

unhypothecated movable property from the premises, putting an

alternative that the same will be removed or sold, and the sale

proceeds will be adjusted towards charges etc., and thereafter,

balance will be credited to the account.

(vii) The petitioner could have taken away his un-hypothecated movables

as advised.

(viii) The petitioner is referring to un-numbered S.A., filed before the

DRT. This suggests that the petitioner is aware of alternative remedy.

10. From the above factual position, it is evident that an alternative remedy

is available and the petitioner has even opted the same and that the petitioner

had sufficient opportunity to ventilate his case in proper forum. With regard to

the scope of interference in the matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act, the

Hon’ble Apex Court in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank

1

, while

deciding an appeal challenging the orders passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court of Telangana in a writ petition, exhaustively considered various

several judgments from paragraph 22 onwards. In para 41 of the judgment of

the Hon’ble Apex Court, observed as follows:-

“41. While dismissing the writ petition, we will have to remind the High Courts of

the following words of this Court in Satyawati Tondon [United Bank of India v.

Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 260 : 2010 INSC 428] since we

have come across various matters wherein the High Courts have been entertaining

1

(2024) 6 SCC 579

10

petitions arising out of the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act in spite of availability of an

effective alternative remedy : (SCC p. 128, para 55)

“55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement

of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory

remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction

under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on

the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We

hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in

such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.”

11. The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satyawati Tondon's

2

case are referred to in paragraph 22 of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO

Bank’s case [cited 1 surpa], which reads as follows:

“22. The law with regard to entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution in case of availability of alternative remedy is well settled. In

Satyawati Tondon [United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110

: (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 260 : 2010 INSC 428] , this Court observed thus : (SCC p. 123,

paras 43-45)

“43. Unfortunately, the High Court [Satyawati Tondon v. State of U.P., 2009

SCC OnLine All 2608] overlooked the settled law that the High Court will

ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an

effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule

applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess,

fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial

institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge

to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must

keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State

Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves

2

(2010) 8 SCC 110

11

inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery

of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for

redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such

cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article

226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available

under the relevant statute.

44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers

conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue

to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,

directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the

enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other

purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that

power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-

imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to

keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of

discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason

why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can

avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc.

and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of

his grievance.”

12. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyawati

Tondon's case, reiterated in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank,

and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be

unhesitatingly concluded that the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be

granted and that there are no grounds to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Hence, we are of the

considered view that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is consequently,

liable to be dismissed.

12

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________

JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

__________________________________

JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA

Date: 10.07.2026

Pnr

Whether the order is:

Speaking √ Non-speaking -

Reportable √- Non-reportable -

13

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

WRIT PETITION NO: 3973 of 2025

# M/s.Bheem Eco Build Tech, Rep. by its Proprietor, Smt. Polla Naga Sudha

Rani, W/o. Polla Amar, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, O/o. R.S.

No.514 and 515, Turlapadu Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District,

Now NTR District, A.P., Pin 521183.

…. Appellant

Versus

$ Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Department Of Finance and Planning,

Secretariat, New Delhi, India And 04 Others.

…. Respondent

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 10.07.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA S ARMA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may

be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked

to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair

copy of the Order ? Yes/No

__________________________

JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

__________________________________

JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA

14

* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

WRIT PETITION NO: 3973 of 2025

% 10.07.2026

# Bheem Eco Build Tech, Rep. by its proprietor, Smt. Poiia Naga Sudha Rani,

W/o. Pollaamar, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, O/o. R.S. No.514 and

515, Turlapadu Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District, Now NTR

District, A.P., Pin 521183..

…. Appellant

Versus

$ Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Department Of Finance and Planning,

Secretariat, New Delhi, India And 04 Others.

…. Respondent

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.Kishore Babu

! Counsel for the Respondents : Sri AISHWARYA NAGULA

Sri Pasala Ponna Rao,

Dep. Solicitor general of india

Sri T. B. L. MURTHY

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

(2024) 6 SCC 579

(2010) 8 SCC 110

15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

and

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

W.P. No.3973 of 2025

Dt. 10 .07.2026

Pnr