THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.3527 OF 2009 ORDER: Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the order of the 5th respondent dated 01.12.2008 made in I.A.No.384 of 2008 and I.A.No.831 of 2008 in S.A.No.68 of 2008, refusing to continue the stay granted in favour of the petitioner, as illegal and violative of the procedure contemplated under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and also voilative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and the Constitutional Right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the petitioner that on coming to know that Respondent No.2, who is his brother, executed a registered settlement deed in favour of his sons i.e. Respondents No. 3 and 4, in respect of the house property bearing D.No. 11-27-2, situate at Manikonda Vari Street, Vijayawada, belonging to his father, and secured mortgage loan from the 1st respondent bank, he filed O.S.No. 196 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, seeking partition of the property and to allot one share to him and the said suit is pending adjudication. While so, the 1st respondent bank issued notice dated 09.05.2008 under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, seeking to take over possession of the schedule property. Therefore, challenging the said notice, he filed S.A.No. 68 of 2008 along with I.A.No. 384 of 2008 seeking stay of all further proceedings, in pursuance thereof, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. The Tribunal, by an order made in I.A.No.384 of 2008 in S.A.No.68 of 2008, dated 16-05-2008, granted stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act, dated 09-05-2008, by the respondent bank till 02-06-2008, on the condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 06-06-2008, failing which the respondent bank shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner. The petitioner could not comply with the said condition within the stipulated time and filed an application for extension of time under Section 22(2) of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993, and also for continuance of the stay. The Tribunal dismissed both the prayers by a common order made in I.A.Nos.384 and 831 of 2008, dated 01-12-2008. Hence, the present Writ Petition. By order dated 26-02-2009, while admitting the writ petition, this Court stayed operation of the order impugned, on condition of the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, within two weeks to the credit of the 1st respondent herein, with a default clause. The petitioner complied with the order of this Court by depositing an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Pursuant to this, since the present Writ Petition is not disposed of, the Tribunal kept the Appeal pending, on the ground that the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue parallel proceedings for the self same relief. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and also to the fact that the petitioner has complied with the order of the Court and deposited the said amount, we deem it appropriate to direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, to dispose of the Appeal as expeditiously as possible and till such time, the interim stay granted by this Court holds good. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, but in the circumstances, without costs. --------------------------- Ghulam Mohammed, J --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 8th September 2009