- (1.) The petitioner sought for a Writ of Mandamus for declaring the action of the 1st respondent, the Authorised Officer of the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Srikakulam, in issuing e-auction sale notice dated 16.11.2015 without duly following the procedure prescribed under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity the SARFAESI Act), particularly in collusion with the 2nd respondent, as arbitrary and illegal.
(2.) Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri T. Rajinikanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B.S.S. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the State Bank of India; and Sri M.V. Suresh, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri G.V. Srirama Murthy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
(3.) At the very outset, we need to observe that the plea taken by Sri M.V. Suresh on behalf of the 2nd respondent, that there was an allegation of collusion between the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent is incredulous, appears to be a sound contention. The fact that the 2nd respondent also purchased the very same property on a previous occasion when the 1st respondent-Bank conducted sale and this time also he has emerged as the best bidder does not necessarily and invariably lead to the conclusion that there was a collusion between the Authorised Officer of the State Bank of India, Srikakulam Main Branch, and the 2nd respondent. Fortunately, for us, Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel has not pressed this contention beyond this point.;