THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NOS.10480, 10496 & 10497 of 2009 21-04-2010 BETWEEN; Malireddy Satyanarayana and others ...Petitioners vs. Bank of India, rep. by its authorised Officer, Visakhapatnam branch and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NOS.10480, 10496 & 10497 of 2009 ORAL COMMON ORDER: (Per GR,J) Heard Sri D.Ramalinga Swamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the above writ petitions and Sri S.Surya Prakasa Rao, the learne counsel representing the Bank of India-respondent, secured creditor. At the request of the respective counsel, though the matter is listed a an interlocutory application of the respondent-secured creditor seekin vacation of the interim order, the writ petitions are heard on merits an disposed of by this common order. In W.P.No.10480 of 2009, the two petitioners are guarantors to a cas credit facility and a loan availed by the 4th respondent from the 1s respondent-secured creditor. The 4th respondent having defaulted on th payment of instalments, the secured creditor initiated proceedings unde the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement o Security Interest Act,2002 (for short “ 2002 Act”), for sale of the secured asset after determining the loan account of the 4th respondent as a Non performing asset. Aggrieved by the proceedings taken by the secure creditor under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act, the petitioners preferred a appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapantam Branch (th Tribunal) in S.A.No.110 of 2008 on 16-09-2008. The Tribunal granted sta of all further proceedings of the auction sale notice dated 11-09-2008, o condition that the petitioners-appellants deposit an amount of Rs.1.5 lak to the credit of the secured creditor, in I.A.No.695 of 2008. Admittedly, th petitioners defaulted in complying with the condition and the stay wa vacated. It is represented by Sri S.Surya Prakasa Rao, the learned counsel fo the secured creditor, on the basis of a letter dated 30.03.2010 addresse by the secured creditor to the learned counsel that S.A.No.110 of 200 filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed for default by the Tribunal o 10-09-2009 and that the petitioners had thereafter filed a petition for settin aside the dismissal order along with petition for condontion of a delay o 158 days. These applications are pending before the Tribunal. This wr petition is filed aggrieved by the alleged conduct of the Tribunal i adjourning the application of the petitioners for granting extension of tim for complying with the conditional interim order granted in I.A.No.695 o 2008; the application for extension of time having been made to th Tribunal in I.A.No.328 of 2009. As the substantive appeal S.A.No.110 o 2008 has now been dismissed, the substantive grievance in this wr petition does not subsist. W.P.No.10496 of 2009:- This writ petition is by guarantor to a loan obtained by the 4t respondent from the 1st respondent-Bank, a secured creditor. The 4t respondent defaulted on payment of the instalments and the loan accoun was declared a non-performing asset. Thereupon, the secured credito issued a possession notice dated 21-12-2007 under Section 13(4) of th 2002 Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed S.A.No.147 of 200 before the DRT, Visakhaptnam challenging the Sec.13(4) proceeding issued by the bank. In I.A.No.924 of 2007 in S.A.No.147 of 2007, th Tribunal granted stay of all further proceedings. The petitioner also plead to have approached the secured creditor for OTS, which however has no been considered. The petitioner’s appeal S.A.No.147 of 2007 wa dismissed for default by the Tribunal on 17-11-2008. While the petitione was in the process of filing the application for restoration of the appeal, th respondent-secured creditor issued an auction sale notice in respect of th secured assets on 27-04-2009, published in the daily press on 28-04-200 scheduling sale of the property of the petitioner on 29-05-2009. It is thi grievance, which has triggered the writ petition. The petitioner also state to have filed another appeal, S.A.No.84 of 2009 before the Tribuna challenging the sale notice dated 27-04-2009 and seeking interim relie therein in I.A.No.330 of 2009, which however has not been disposed of. Sri S.Surya Prakasa Rao, the learned counsel for the responden secured creditor states on the basis of a letter dated 30-03-201 addressed by the secured creditor to the learned counsel that S.A.No.84 o 2009(the subsequent appal) filed by the petitioner was also dismissed fo default by an order of the Tribunal dated 09-01-2010. W.P.No.10497 of 2009:- The four petitioners jointly obtained from the 1s respondent-bank (secured creditor) a housing loan. They executed a lette of guarantee and mortgaged/hypothecated the schedule property to th secured creditor towards security for the loan availed. They defaulted o the payment of the instalments and the bank determined the loan accoun as a non-performing asset and proceeded against the secured asset under the provisions of the 2002 Act. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferre an appeal before the DRT, Visakhapatnam (the Tribunal) in S.A.No.147 o 2007 challenging the possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of th 2002 Act. The Tribunal granted stay of all further proceedings including o taking possession, in I.A.No.924 of 2007. The petitioners also claim to b pursuing with the secured creditor for a One Time Settlement, whic however had not fructified by the date of the filing of this writ petition. Th appeal by the petitioners S.A.No.147 of 2007 is admitted to have bee dismissed for default on 17.11.2008. The petitioners are stated to b considering filing a restoration petition and meanwhile the auction sal notice dated 27-04-2009 has been issued by the secured creditor whic was published in the daily press on 28-04-2009 scheduling the sale on 29 05-2009. This is the grievance presented in this writ petition. The petitioners plead to have filed another Appeal, S.A.No.83 o 2009 before the Tribunal challenging the subsequent sale notice dated 17 04-2009 and along therewith in I.A.No.327 of 2009 sought stay of the sal of the secured assets. The Tribunal in I.A.No.327 of 2009 granted conditional stay by an order dated 22-05-2009, characterised by th petitioner as “onerous conditions”. Sri S.Surya Prakasa Rao, the learned counsel for the responden secured creditor states on the basis of a letter dated 30-03-200 addressed by the secured creditor to the learned counsel that th subsequent Appeal S.A.No.83 of 2009 filed by the petitioners herein ha been adjourned on a number of occasions at the request of the appellant therein and now stands posted to 24.04.2010. As is apparent from the order dated 22-05-2009 of the Tribunal i I.A.No.327 of 2009 in S.A.No.83 of 2009, stay was granted on condition o the petitioners depositing Rs.3 lakhs before the commencement of th auction, failing which the bank could proceed with the auction a proposed. The consideration of application for grant of stay is within th discretionary contours of the Tribunal, which is an adjudicatory bod constituted under the provisions of the 2002 Act. Neither from th pleadings in these writ petitions nor from the order of the Tribunal date 22-05-2009 in I.A.No.327 of 2009 is it possible to legitimately infer an perversity in the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal, warrantin interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the light of the facts set out above in respect of these three wr petitions, no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of th Constitution. There are no merits. These writ petitions are accordingly dismissed The interim orders in each of the writ petitions stand dissolved forthwith No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 21st APRIL 2010. TSNR