IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No . 18711 OF 2009 Between: Sudas Chandra Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai, represented by is Registrar and others .....RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 18711 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed,J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in passing suo moto order dated 11.09.2008 transferring O.A.No.35 of 2006 from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Hyderabad to the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Visakhapatnam and renumbering it as O.A.No.150 of 2008, which was informed to the petitioner through letter dated 31.7.2009 by the second respondent, as illegal and arbitrary, and to set-aside the same. 2. The petitioner stated that the first respondent-Appellate Tribunal did not give him any notice of hearing before effecting the transfer order. The petitioner stated that he received notice on 25.11.2008 from the second respondent stating that O.A.No.35 of 2006 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad has been transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam and the same is registered as O.A.No.150 of 2008 and he was to be present before it on 22.12.2008. Subsequently, a letter dated 31.07.2009 was addressed by the second respondent to the counsel for respondent No.4- petitioner herein with regard the said transfer. The petitioner is not aware as to why and how the original application was transferred to Visakhapatnam. The petitioner stated that the matter is of great importance and that huge amount of Rs.15 crores is involved in it. The petitioner expressed his difficulty to contest the matter before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam as his witnesses, all the way, have to travel to Visakhapatnam to depose in the matter. The petitioner stated that he came to know that transfer was made as the Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, was the counsel for the Banks, which are applicants in this matter and if that be so, the petitioner cannot be penalized to go to Visakhapatnam to contest the matter. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the first respondent in transferring the matter suto moto from Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam, without giving notice of hearing to the petitioner is not sustainable under law and to that effect he has drawn our attention to Section 17-A (2) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act,1993 (for short ‘the Act’) which reads as under: “The Chairperson of an Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction over the Tribunals may, on the application of any of the parties or on his own motion after notice to the parties and after hearing them, transfer any case from one Tribunal for disposal to any other Tribunal” The learned counsel further contended that the matter before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam may not be adjudicated appropriately by affording fair and reasonable opportunity as it will be difficult for the petitioner’s witnesses to travel to Visakhapatnam to depose in the matter. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. It is seen that as the Chairperson of Appellate Tribunal, the first respondent has transferred the matter to the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam. Nonetheless, before making the order of transfer, the first respondent has to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 17-A (2) of the Act. On the other hand, it is seen that the petitioner received notice on 25.11.2008 from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and he kept quiet for nine months and thereafter, he filed the present writ petition in September,2009. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the transfer order passed by the first respondent as no useful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending, but however, we deem it appropriate to direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioner so as to enable him to produce the witnesses. Further, we are not inclined to consider the specific allegations made against the Presiding Officers and the same is deprecated. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner that he is not able to get justice in view of the transfer of matter to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, cannot be sustained. 5. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, is directed to proceed with the matter by affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner so as to enable him to produce the witnesses, and conduct the matter in fair and proper manner in accordance with law. No costs. __________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 08-09-2009 Stp