IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NOs :2599, 2623, 2635 AND 2645 of 2010 WRIT PETITION NO :2599 of 2010 Between: S.Rama Rao ..... PETITIONER AND M/s.State Bank of India, Dindigal Branch, Hyderabad Rep. by its authorized officer & Another. .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO :2623 of 2010 Between: S.Rama Rao ..... PETITIONER AND M/s.State Bank of India, Dindigal Branch, Hyderabad Rep. by its authorized officer & Another. .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO :2635 of 2010 Between: S.Rama Rao ..... PETITIONER AND M/s.State Bank of India, Dindigal Branch, Hyderabad Rep. by its authorized officer & Another. .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO :2645 of 2010 Between: S.Rama Rao ..... PETITIONER AND M/s.State Bank of India, Dindigal Branch, Hyderabad Rep. by its authorized officer & Another. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION Nos.2599, 2623, 2635 AND 2645 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) As these four writ petitions are arising out of the very same proceedings and between the same parties, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. Petitioner in all these writ petitions claiming to be an agreement holder of sale-cum-G.P.A. (with possession) in respect of the properties which were sought to be auctioned for due recovery of the loan amount due to the respondent-Bank against the secured asset mortgaged by M/s. Venkateswara Builders and Developers, represented by its Proprietor Rama Rao (petitioner herein), filed this writ petition questioning the auction-cum-sale notice issued by the first respondent-Bank, dated 8.2.2010. Questioning the similar auction notice, dated 24.8.2009 in respect of the schedule properties mentioned therein, petitioner filed S.A.Nos.286, 284, 287 and 285 of 2009, in which, he filed I.A.Nos.1075, 1073, 1076 and 1074 of 2009 respectively to set aside the said auction notice. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad by orders, dated 9.10.2009 directed the first respondent-Bank to postpone the proposed auction to 10.11.2009 on condition of petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- in each of the application with the Bank on or before 12.10.2009 and in the event of failure to deposit the said amount, the Bank was granted liberty to proceed with the auction on 12.10.2009 and the amount so deposited was directed to be adjusted towards the paper publication of auction notice and the same should not be debited to the loan account. It was further directed that on receipt of statement of account on or before 23.10.2009 by the Bank, the petitioner should deposit the amount due under secured debt by the borrower, with the Bank on or before 9.11.2009, failure to which, the Bank was granted liberty to proceed with the auction. Petitioner having not complied with the said conditional order, again filed applications in I.A.Nos.1218, 1216, 1219 and 1217 of 2009 seeking enlargement of time by eight weeks for complying with the orders, dated 9.10.2009 passed in I.A.Nos.1075, 1073, 1076 and 1074 of 2009 respectively. The Tribunal by its docket order, dated 9.11.2009 while posting the matter to 18.11.2009 for filing counter, observed that if the Bank proceeded with the auction due to non-compliance of the conditional order by the petitioner, the said auction would be subject to the result of S.As. and the Bank should inform the said fact to the auction purchasers. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the said orders, the impugned auction notice was issued by the first respondent-Bank on 31.12.2009 proposing to auction the secured asset on 8.2.2010. Questioning the said auction, the present writ petitions are filed contending that when the appeals filed by the petitioner are pending adjudication, proceeding with the auction by the first respondent- Bank by issuing the impugned publication is nothing but to defeat the rights of the petitioner in the Securitization Appeal, and therefore, the Bank cannot proceed with the impugned auction. It is not disputed by the petitioner when pointed out the observation of the Tribunal that in S.A.Nos.192 to 219 of 2007 filed by M/s.Venkateswara Builders and Developers, represented by its Proprietor S.Rama Rao (petitioner herein) a common order was passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeals on merits. As seen from the record, on dismissal of the said appeals, the petitioner, who is the Proprietor of M/s.Venkateswara Builders and Developers, filed the present writ petitions in his individual capacity under the guise of an agreement holder of sale-cum-G.P.A. with possession. It is to be noted that the first respondent-Bank cancelled the auction more than one occasion on initiation of the fresh proceedings in view of the pendency of earlier appeals in S.A.Nos.192 to 219 of 2007 filed by M/s.Venkateswara Builders and Developers. In spite of dismissal of the appeals, the borrower, to which the petitioner is the Proprietor, did not choose to liquidate the loan amount, but the petitioner again filed the present S.As. in his individual capacity with a view to stall the proceedings. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the issuance of the impugned sale notice by the first respondent-Bank as per the orders of the Tribunal cannot be found faulted with and the same cannot be questioned. Further when the Tribunal refused to stay the impugned auction, without questioning the said order, filing the present writ petitions questioning the auction notice cannot be entertained. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) _________________ (NOUSHAD ALI, J.) FEBRUARY 10, 2010 TSR