IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13459 of 2004 Between: 1. M/s. Rajeswari Trading Company, rep by Managing Partner Sri J. Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o Adinarayana Murthy, r/o Kontheru, Palakole, West Godavari District. 2. Sri J. Satyanarayana Murthy S/o Adinarayana Murthy M/s. Rajeswari Trading Company, R/o Kontheru, Palakole, West Godavari District . ..... PETITIONERS. AND 1. M/s. Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Palakole, West Godavari District. 2. The Debt Recovery Tribunal Visakhapatnam rep. by Presiding Officer. .....RESPONDENTS. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing auction notification published in Eenadu daily, West Godavari District Edition on 27-7-2004 and taking steps of auctioning the movable property of M/s. Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Konteru Via Palakole, West Godavari District and set aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the Advocate Commissioner/Receiver not to seize the movable property of M/s Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Kontheru Via Palakol, West Godavari District. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.P.A.V.BALAPRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None appeared. The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per The Honourable Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice) O.A.No. 83 of 2004 was filed by the respondent-Bank for recovery of its dues against the petitioners, and, an application in IA No. 183 of 2004 was also filed praying for appointment of Commissioner/Receiver for seizing and selling away the movable property like machinery etc. stated in Schedule-III. The Commissioner executed the warrant by making inventory of stocks lying in the mill and all movable properties like machinery etc. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, on receipt of the report, passed the following order: “Counter not filed. Heard. The same Commissioner is appointed as Commissioner to sell the stocks mentioned his report and deposit the amount into tribunal and file report. He shall give notice to both sides before executing warrant and also publish about auction in Eenadu, W.G.District edition. His remuneration is tentatively fixed at Rs.3000/-. The bank shall bear incidental expenses of Commissioner. For report call on 5.8.2004.” The auction notification pursuant to the aforementioned order is under challenge by the petitioners. We entertain the Writ Petition since it is stated that there is no Presiding Officer for the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. Though the Commissioner was appointed for seizing and selling away the movable property like machinery etc., and, submitted his report, but the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal is only for sale of the stocks mentioned in the report and not movables like machinery etc. The grievance of the petitioners is that this order was passed without due opportunity. We have heard the learned counsel for parties. Normally, running unit cannot be permitted to be sold. We also find that there is no order appointing Receiver. Only Commissioner was appointed to make inventory of the machinery and the stock, and, stock has been ordered to be sold and not the machinery. Therefore, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall proceed to pass orders only after hearing the learned counsel for parties and affording due opportunity to the party as regards the machinery etc. is concerned. But, we are not staying the operation of the order insofar as it directs sale of the stocks and the petitioners shall proceed and submit their objections before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. We also direct that petitioners will be permitted to continue their operations in the property without any hindrance and would not transfer or alienate any part of the machinery or other goods lying in the property. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. ___________________ DEVINDER GUPTA, C.J. 20.8.2004. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J. VR. To 1.The Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. 2. Two CD copies.