IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 27085 of 2008 Between: Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi Bodduluri W/o. Sri B.Hareram Flat No. 301, Sitarama Residency, Achyuta Reddy Marg, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500044. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Vijaya Bank S.D.Road Branch, Secunderabad. represented by its Authorised Officer 2 M/s. Aroma Biotech Company (P) Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director 145/C, Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad. 3 Dr. Harish Babu Maddineni S/o. Sri Chenchu Punnaiah Chowdary Flat No. 502, Bhavani Shakti Homes, Near Nagarjuna High School, Rajeev Nagar, Hyderabad. 4 Gounder Perumal Selvaraj S/o. Chinna Perumal Gounder R/o. C/143, BHEL. Township, Trichy, Tamilnadu - 600 014. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the pronounced contemplation of the Ld. Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad on 5-12-2008 for going ahead with the trial of S.A. No. 174 of 2007 on 10-12-2008 despite Transfer Application IN 952 of 2008 dated 28-10-2008 of the petitioner is pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai which sought transfer of S.A. No. 174 of 2007 from Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad to any other Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai in the wake of loss of petitioner's confidence in the modus of conduction of the said Tribunal proceedings by its Ld. Presiding Officer as being arbitrary, intimidating, illegal, and discriminatory and is a clear violation of her fundamental rights guaranteed under the Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and of the Principles of Natural Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.G.K.DESHPANDE The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Petitioner questions the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad dated 05.12.2008 in I.A.No.1217 of 2008 in S.A.No.174 of 2007 in allowing the application of the first respondent-bank for advancement of the securitization application from 05.01.2009 to 10.12.2008, which was posted for arguments. Petitioner is the applicant who filed S.A.No.174 of 2007 on 06.11.2007 before DRT questioning the notice dated 22.09.2007 issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’). Petitioner also filed an application in I.A.No.863 of 2007 seeking stay of further proceedings and the DRT by order dated 07.11.2007 granted stay pursuant to the aforesaid notice and the stay was also extended from time to time. Petitioner also filed I.A.No.864 of 2007 on 06.11.2007 seeking a direction to the first respondent-bank to furnish certified copies of various documents pending disposal of the securitization application and the said application was dismissed on merits by order dated 22.09.2008, as the petitioner refused to cross examine the bank officer-RW.1. Accordingly, the matter was posted for arguments on 23.09.2008. On 23.09.2008, the petitioner filed another application in I.A.No.1030 of 2008 to set aside the order dated 22.09.2008 and to reopen the matter for the evidence of RW.1. The said application was dismissed on the same day i.e., on 23.09.2008. The securitization application was posted on 25.09.2008 for production of the petitioner and also for arguments and the petitioner filed a memo on which an order was passed on the same day giving liberty to the petitioner to move an application for transfer of securitization application to another tribunal and accordingly, adjourned to 03.10.2008. From 03.10.2008, it was adjourned to 05.01.2009. At that juncture, the first respondent-bank filed I.A.No.1217 of 2008 to advance the S.A. from 05.01.2009 to 05.12.2008 and the said petition was allowed advancing the S.A. from 05.01.2009 to 10.12.2008 for arguments. Questioning the said order, dated 05.12.2008 in I.A.No.1217 of 2008, this writ petition has been filed on the ground that when the transfer application was filed by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, there cannot be any justification on the part of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in entertaining the application of the first respondent-bank for advancing the arguments from 05.01.2009 to 10.12.2008, more so when the transfer application was filed on 28.10.2008. We are of the opinion that the tribunal gave sufficient time to the petitioner to enable him to file a transfer application and to get appropriate orders in the transfer application either for grant of stay or for transfer of the securitization application. But so far the petitioner could not obtain any orders from the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the said transfer application. However, the order in I.A.No.1217 of 2008 is only advancing the S.A. from 05.01.2009 to 10.12.2008, which period has already elapsed and the petitioner failed to question the orders in I.A.No.864 of 2008 as well as I.A.No.1030 of 2008. The matter has been again adjourned from 10.12.2008 to 27.12.2008 and again to 23.01.2009 and the Tribunal reserved the orders. In view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order has already been worked out and do not call for any interference by this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any merits in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 18, 2009 KH/DSK