THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKER WRIT PETITION NO : 28461 of 2010 Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent-bank in taking steps to disburse the balance amount in pursuance of the auction held on 1.11.2010 to the 2nd respondent even though the petitioners are entitled to receive the same, being mortgagees of the property, as illegal and arbitrary. They also sought for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent not to disburse the balance amount to the 2nd respondent. Petitioners claim that the 2nd respondent and his sons availed loans from the petitioners by mortgaging their properties. However, the 2nd respondent has also availed loan from the 1st respondent-bank in respect of the very same properties, which were mortgaged in favour of the petitioners, by suppressing the said fact. However, when the 2nd respondent committed default in payment of the loan amount, the 1st respondent has initiated proceedings for recovery of the same by bringing the properties, which were mortgaged as security to sale. In that regard, a tender-cum-auction notification dated 20.10.2010 was issued by the 1st respondent-bank in respect of the said properties. Petitioners state that the said auction was held on 1.11.2010 and one Gaddam Ankal Reddy became the highest bidder, who purchased the property for Rs.5,30,05,000/-. Since the amount which is due to the 1st respondent bank is only Rs.2.00 cores and the 2nd respondent owes an amount of Rs.3.30 crores to them, the petitioners made a representation to it to include their claim in the sale proceedings. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent, without considering their representation is proceeding to disburse the amount to the 2nd respondent. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are afraid that this writ petition cannot be entertained inasmuch as the petitioners have to file a suit for recovery by availing the private law remedy and they are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they would approach the Civil Court. However, since the properties in question have already been sold in public auction and the 1st respondent also realised an amount of Rs.5.00 crores and odd, their interests may be safeguarded in the meantime, by issuing a direction to the respondent-bank not to disburse the amount. Under the circumstances, we restrain the 1st respondent-bank from disbursing the amount for a period of six weeks so as to enable the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing suit, in the meantime. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 16th November, 2010 ___________________ N. RAVI SHANKER,J Note: Communicate the operative portion by wire at party’s costs. B/o pnb