IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.1544 of 2010 Between: M/s.Velagapudi Storage, represented by its Partner V.Ram Prasad. … Petitioner And State Bank of India, represented by its authorized officer and another. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.1544 of 2010 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.1048 of 2009 in S.A.No.277 of 2009, dated 25.09.2009 and to quash the same. Petitioner, who is an auction purchaser, purchased the secured property in an open auction conducted by the 1st respondent-Bank on 27.04.2009, for a sum of Rs.3,49,50,000/- as highest bidder and deposited 25% of the sale price immediately and the balance sale price on 11.05.2009, by way of demand drafts and a sale certificate to the said effect was also issued on 12.05.2009. The 2nd respondent- borrower, who has filed the writ petition No.10010 of 2009 questioning the sale notice which was disposed of granting liberty to him to approach the Tribunal if he is aggrieved by the measures taken by the bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act”) and sale conducted pursuant to the sale notice, filed the above Securitisation Appeal, in which he filed two I.As., namely I.A.No.1048 of 2009 for staying the further proceedings, including the dispossession of the 2nd respondent from the petition schedule property and also I.A.No.1049 of 2009 for grant of injunction restraining the 2nd respondent-petitioner herein from alienating, transferring, leasing or encumbering the petition schedule property purchased by him under the sale certificate dated 12.05.2009. The Tribunal by its separate order dated 25.09.2009, directed both the parties to maintain status quo relating to possession of the property in I.A.No.1048 of 2009 and restrained the petitioner herein from alienating, transferring, leasing or encumbering the petition schedule property to any third party till 23.10.2009, by way of an ex parte order in I.A.No.1049 of 2009. Questioning the order of granting status quo in I.A.No.1048 of 2009, the present writ petition has been filed. It is not out of place to notice that the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.26430 of 2009 to declare the action of the 1st respondent-bank in not registering the property, which he purchased in the auction notice, as arbitrary, illegal and for refund of the amount deposited by him towards the sale consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the tribunal ought not to have entertained the Securitisation Appeal. Once the sale certificate is issued in his favour, the sale is said to have been completed and it is not a measure taken under Section 13(4) of the Act to entertain the application. The very fact that the petitioner is restrained from alienating, transferring, leasing or encumbering the petition schedule property itself shows that he is deemed to be in possession of the property on issuing the sale certificate. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal directing the parties to maintain status quo is erroneous and under the guise of the status quo order, the 1st respondent-bank is not delivering the property to the petitioner. Since it is only an ex parte interim order passed by the Tribunal, to which proceeding the petitioner is also impleaded as 2nd respondent, it is always open for the petitioner to move the Tribunal for vacating the interim order for enabling the Bank to deliver the possession of the property and to enjoy the fruits of the sale certificate. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 1st respondent-bank represented that necessary counter affidavits have already been filed before the Tribunal in the above I.A., seeking vacation of the interim orders. In view of the same, any observation made by us with regard to the maintainability of the appeal, when the appeal is pending, before the Tribunal is unwarranted. Suffice, if a direction is issued to the Tribunal to dispose of the said I.A. and finally within a time frame, to meet the ends of justice. We accordingly dispose of the writ petition directing the Tribunal to dispose of both the I.As., i.e., I.A.No.1048 of 2009 and I.A.No.1049 of 2009 in S.A.No.277 of 2009, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity to both the parties. No order as to costs. ___________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 01.02.2010 lmv