HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.17298 of 2011 Date: December 29, 2011 Between: 1. Bolla Nancharamma (died) per LRs. and 5 others … Petitioners and 1. The Tahsildar, Mudenepalli, Krishna District & 9 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.17298 of 2011 O R D E R: Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents who had filed vacate stay petitions. With the consent of all the counsel the writ petition itself is taken up. 2. By this writ petition the petitioners question the auction sale conducted by respondents 5 and 6 whereby respondents 7 to 9 have become successful auction purchasers. The said auction held on 14.12.2010 under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, is questioned by the petitioners on various grounds alleging irregularities in respect of conduct of sale. 3. The petitioners state that they are not aware of all these proceedings, however, that part of the petitioners averments are strongly opposed by the respondents and it is contended by the respondents in their counter-affidavits that the petitioners, through other family members, are fully aware of the auction proposed and the sale conducted. 4. The matter was seriously contested on both sides and the learned senior counsel has also placed before the Court various circumstances, which according to him vitiate the auction sale. However, it is not in dispute that the recovery proceedings under the aforesaid Act are taken up by the Recovery Officer appointed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal by virtue of Rules under Schedule II of Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Rules being self-contained provided various remedies in case of attachment and sale of immovable property. If any person is aggrieved by such sale, Rules 60 and 61 specifically deal with applications to set aside sale of immovable property on the ground of irregularity or illegality and that jurisdiction to consider such applications is also specified by the said Rules. The aforesaid rules are akin to the scheme under the Code of Civil Procedure under Order XXI Rules 89 and 90. Thus, when such effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, I am of the view that invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not called for. 5. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed, however, the petitioners are granted liberty to move appropriate authority if they are aggrieved by the auction sale conducted by the Recovery Officer and they are at liberty to raise all legal and factual grounds which they consider necessary. Since this writ petition was pending on the file of this Court since 22.6.2011 and a status quo order is operating in favour of the petitioners since then, in the interest of justice, the said status quo order shall operate for a period of two weeks from today. No order as to costs. 6. In view of the disposal of the writ petition itself, W.V.M.P.No.3653 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.3362 of 2011 are dismissed as unnecessary. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Date: December 29, 2011. Note: Issue C.C. by 02.01.2012. //B.O.// BSB