(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS or any other writ by declaring that the action of the 1ST Respondent bank in contemplating to auction the Schedule of properties mentioned below, belonging to the Petitioners herein pursuant to a Sale Notice dated. 17.02.2026, without considering the Petitioners request/s and representation s for settling the dues of the 1ST Respondent bank to release the Schedule of properties, without considering the lien amount of Rs.1.8 Crores apportioned by the Petitioner for settling the dues with the 1ST Respondent bank, without awaiting the outcome of the SA No. 713 of 2025 pending on the file of the 2ND Respondent, as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, untenable, contrary of Principles of Natural Justice, contrary t the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 and rules framed there under, besides being violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the interest of justice and consequently direct 1ST Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dt.09.12.2025 for settling the dues and releasing the Schedule of properties and pass

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 pleased to DIRECT the 1ST Respondent not to take any coercive steps including conducting auction of the ‘Schedule of properties’, pursuant to the impugned sale notice dated. 17.02.2026, during the pendency of SA No. 666 of 2025 on the file of the 2ND Respondent and/or pass

IA NO: 2 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 May be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 12.03.2026 in lA No. 1 of 2026 in W.P. No. 7212 of 2026 and dismiss the WP with exemplary costs.)

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.1 Bank in proceeding further pursuant to the sale notice dated 17.02.2026, issued without considering the earlier representations of the petitioners and particularly during the pendency of S.A.No.713 of 2025 on the file of respondent No.2 / the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Visakhapatnam and to pass such orders proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Petitioners in S.A.No.713 of 2025, along with two others viz. respondent Nos.9 and 10 therein filed the present writ petition. They are said to be guarantors. Respondent No.2 is a proforma party.

3. Heard Sri Venkata Narayana Rao Vedula, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. V. Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1/Bank and Sri V. Ravindranath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6.

4. The grievance of the writ petitioners is the petitioners questioned the sale notice dated 28.10.2025 issued by the respondent No.1. During the currency of the same, they filed an interlocutory application questioning the said notice vide I.A.No.4597 of 2025 in S.A.No.713 of 2025. During the pendency of the said application, without passing any orders, respondent No.2 is proceeding with further process. Meanwhile, the said proposed sale was cancelled for want of bidders. Again, a fresh notice dated 17.02.2026 was issued and the sale is being proceeded with basing on that. Hence, he is aggrieved. He seeks a direction to stay the sale till disposal of S.A. or stay application.

5 (i). The contention of the respondent No.1 bank is that respondent No.3, the principal borrower, availed the loan from respondent No.1-Bank and petitioners Nos.1 and 2 worked as directors. Respondent No.3 / debtor committed default in repayment of dues, which has resulted in classifying the account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The respondent Bank has invoked the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002), issued a demand notice dated 22.07.2021 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 demanding for payment of Rs.31,46,59,258.47/- as on 31.06.2021 together with future interest and costs and thereafter issued possession notices dated 02.11.2021, 08.02.2022 and 15.02.2022, as the dues could not be cleared.

                  (ii). When the petitioners failed to redeem the mortgage in terms of Section 13 (8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, respondent-Bank issued an auction notice dated 28.10.2025 fixing the date of auction as 28.11.2025. Challenging the said auction notice, the petitioners filed S.A.No.713 of 2025 before the DRT and the respondent Bank filed a reply statement and contesting the said SA.

                  (iii). Petitioners have also filed I.A.No.4597 of 2025 in S.A.No.713 of 2025 seeking stay of all further proceedings pending disposal of the S.A. The Hon’ble DRT, vide orders dated 28.11.2025, was pleased to observe that it is not just and proper to stay the auction and ordered only stay of confirmation of sale till disposal of the S.A. and fixed the case for hearing on 17.01.2026. The petitioners, instead of advancing arguments and reporting ready in S.A. on 07.01.2026, filed a memo not pressing the claim against respondent Nos.2 to 11 in S.A.No.713 of 2025. Accordingly, S.A. was dismissed against respondent Nos.2 to 11 and posted the matter to 04.03.2026 for arguments. There is order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble DRT staying confirmation of sale, which became final. However, the sale schedule could not be materialised for want of bidders. In that context respondent Bank issued fresh auction notice dated 17.02.2026 fixing the date of auction as 13.03.2026.

                  (iv). If the petitioners are aggrieved by the said notice, they have effective and alternative remedy either to file a fresh S.A. under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Hon’ble DRT, Visakhapatnam or to file an application seeking stay of sale in the pending S.A. before the DRT with an application seeking amendment of pleadings. But, the petitioners for the reasons known to them did not advance arguments as directed by the DRT and filed the present writ petition. The auction notice dated 17.02.2026 is not the subject matter of lis in S.A.No.713 of 2025. The prayer in the writ petition is beyond the scope of relief prayed in S.A.No.713 of 2025 before the DRT. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Various other contentions are raised by the writ petitioner touching the litigations inter se, directions and the submissions made by the principal borrower for OTS and non-consideration of the OTS by the Bank. The same are answered by the Bank as irrelevant and that the debtor cannot insist to accept the OTS and it is the discretion of the Bank to accept the OTS subject to rules and acceptability.

7. While submitting the arguments, learned counsel for the respondent- Bank would submit that if the petitioners proceed with arguments in the S.A. and seek disposal of the S.A. or any relief before the Hon’ble DRT, they have no objection but the relief prayed for in the writ petition is not tenable and pendency of the writ petition is going to unnecessarily stall the proceedings before the Hon’ble DRT.

8. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and representations of both parties, we deem it proper to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

                  (i). If necessary, the writ petitioners are at liberty to file an application before the Hon’ble DRT questioning the sale notice dated 17.02.2026 within one week from today and the Hon’ble DRT shall pass appropriate orders as per law on the said application in time-bound manner within a period of two (02) weeks thereafter, for which both parties shall cooperate. In the mean- while, there shall be status quo as on this day, to proceed with the sale notice dated 17.02.2026.

                  (ii). Both parties are directed to cooperate with the Hon’ble DRT for disposal of the S.A. itself by submitting arguments within a period of four (04) weeks and the Hon’ble DRT may dispose of the S.A. as per law as early as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) months.

                  (iii). There shall be no order as to costs.

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