HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA W.P.No.11982 of 2011 Date: 27-04-2011 Between: K. Srinivas and others ………. Petitioners And Indian Bank and others. …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA W.P.No.11982 of 2011 ORDER: (Per BPR, J) Normal restitutes of litigant knocking the doors of temples of justice, be it a Court or Tribunal, and the plight with which he has to necessarily pass through at risk in the process of proceedings which in the routine way impresses the need for proper aid. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who claim the properties in question, seek writ of Mandamus directing the authorized officer of the first respondent-bank not to take physical possession of their assets which contain the property bearing D.No.3-5-1015 admeasuring 228 square yards and D.No.3-5-1016 admeasuring 160 square yards, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad under the provisions of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) till the disposal of S.A.No.197 of 2010 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. It is stated that in pursuance of a notice, dated 13-07-2010 issued purportedly under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules framed thereunder, the possession of the property, where an educational institution is being run, seems to have been taken by the first respondent-bank and the said property is subject to the charge of the bank for an amount of Rs.7,80,06,542/- and interest thereon. The petitioners claim is totally alien to any such transaction with the bank or the loan facility availed by the defaulter M/s. PDM Industries and others. According to the petitioners, those defaulters have nothing concern with the property and it belongs to them. The petitioners also claim that they never mortgaged these properties to any other bank and it is in the possession of M/s. Taksasila Education Society, by virtue of the memorandum of understanding, dated 10-06-2006 executed by them, which is running a school under the name and style of ‘T.H.E. World School’ for the last four years and there are about 1400 students in the institution. Even though the petitioners sought to avail the remedies as available under the SARFAESI Act, however, there is no Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad till 09-09-2010. Therefore, aggrieved by the said notice, earlier the petitioners filed a writ in W.P.No.22262 of 2010 wherein this Court has directed the disposal of the application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and granted stay. The petitioners have accordingly filed application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which was numbered as S.A.No.197 of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad whereunder they filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.819 of 2010 seeking stay of the proceedings in pursuance of the notice, dated 13-07-2010 issued by the first respondent-bank. However the said application was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad as per the orders, dated 23-12-2010. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed an appeal under Section 18 of the said Act before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai, which was numbered as MA (SA) No.22 of 2011, which was disposed of as per the orders, dated 21-01- 2011 directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad to dispose of the main S.A. on merits by 22-03-2011 and in the meantime the bank is restrained from taking any coercive steps against the property mentioned therein till that date. In the meanwhile, the incharge Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad was relieved and a new Presiding Officer took charge. Hence, a letter was written by the Registrar of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad on 31-03-2011 to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai seeking for extension by another three months to dispose of the main S.A. The petitioners also approached the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, by filing an application for extension of the interim order from 23-02-2011 till the disposal of the S.A. The Appellate Tribunal has taken up the application 21-03-2011 and passed the order directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, to take up the matter on 31-03-2011 and hear the arguments of both the parties on the same day. While so, it restrained the authorized officer of the bank from taking possession of the property till 25-04-2011. Accordingly, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabd has taken up the matter on 19- 04-2011 and heard the arguments of both sides and again the matter was adjourned to 10-06-2011 for orders in the above S.A.No.197 of 2010. In view of this memorabilia, which has lead to a situation where the granting of say orders and restricting the same and ultimately non- disposal of the proceedings before the primary authority, the petitioners are at receiving end and apprehends that the authorized officer and the bank would proceed with coercive steps, as a result of which the petitioners and the institution would suffer irreparable loss and injury. In the above circumstances, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Standing counsel Sri Amabdipudi Stayanarayana, who took notice and made his submissions, the ultimate point for consideration is as to whether, on the facts and circumstances, would it be justified to restrict the granting of stay for a particular period without disposal of the main proceedings. There being no dispute in regard to the above chequered events, the natural corollary is that the petitioners are now virtually facing the wall where there is no stay granted. Even though initially the stay application was dismissed, however in appeal, the stay was granted with a direction to dispose of the main S.A. While so, the Appellate Tribunal has not only directed the appeal to be taken up on a particulate day but also restricted the granting of stay to that particular day itself. Even thereafter, when the matter has come up again, there is a restriction in regard to the stay period, but whereas ultimately, as could be evident from the above situation, the main proceedings have gone far beyond the period of the stay. In these circumstances, normal practice and the balance of convenience would impel any authorities concerned including the Appellate Tribunals not to restrict the grant of stay orders for a particular period and allow the main proceedings to be kept pending. If really such restricted stay is to be granted, necessarily the main proceedings should be disposed of by such date or before the expiry thereof, but not otherwise. In the circumstances, we are of the view that such course as adopted by the Appellate Tribunal in not allowing the interim stay, which it had granted, to subsist till the disposal of the main proceedings is totally unjustified. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed granting stay till the disposal of the main proceedings in S.A.No.197 of 2010 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ______________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date: 27-04-2011 YCR