IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 27346 of 2008 BETWEEN: Vuppalanchi Murlidhar Rao S/o. V.G. Shankar, R/o. Flat No.503, Tirumala Nivas, Judges Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 M/s. Maheswari Binny Rice Mills, rep. by its Proprietor, Papisetty Padma, Madaram Village, Midgil Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 2 The State Bank of Hyderabad, rep. by its Branch Manager, Barkas Branch, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed in S.A.No.249/2008 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad dated 12.12.2008 and issuing the warrant on the same day at 5.30 P.M. having pronounced the orders at 5 P.M. without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to question the order as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently set aside the same as illegal and pass all necessary orders for the said purpose. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents No.1: MR. S. RAVI Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR. ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 1106 of 2009 BETWEEN: State Bank of Hyderabad, Barkas Branch, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Branch Manager. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Vuppalanchi Murlidhar Rao, S/o. V.G. Shankar, R/o. Flat NO. 503, Tirumala Nivas Judges Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad. 2 M/s. Maheshwari Binny Rice Mill, Rep.b y its Proprietor, Smt. P. Padma, Madaram Village, Midgiri Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in S.A.No. 249 of 2008 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad and issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 12-12-2008 passed in the above S.A. as illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the second respondent to redeliver the schedule property to the petitioner bank to hand over possession to the first respondent (auction pruchaser) and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) WP.No.27346 of 2008 is filed by the auction purchaser and WP.No.1106 of 2009 is filed by the State Bank of Hyderabad. In both these writ petitions the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad dated 12.12.2008 in allowing S.A.No.249 of 2008 is questioned. 2. The aforesaid securitisation application was moved by the borrower under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) questioning the measures taken by the bank including the auction dated 31.03.2008 under the Act and the Rules 2002. Under the impugned order the DRT has gone into several questions, which were raised for consideration and on finding them in favour of the borrower, has allowed the said application and has set aside the auction and directed re-delivery of the property. Questioning the same, as mentioned above, the auction purchaser has moved WP.No.27346 of 2008 and the bank has filed WP.No.1106 of 2009. 3. When the matter initially came up before a Division Bench, while issuing notice to the respondents on 16.12.2008 granted orders of status quo to be maintained so far as possession of the property in question. So, by further order dated 29.12.2008 the Division Bench has directed that the respondent No.1 (borrower), who has been given possession of the property in question, shall not part with the property or shall not create any third parties in the property in question pending further orders. 4. Today we have heard the matter and after hearing Sri. K.V. Bhanu Prasad and Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions and Sri S. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/borrower in both the matter, We are not inclined to agree with the contentions of the petitioners that in spite of an efficacious alternative remedy available to them, this writ petition is required to be entertained by this Court. The averments in both the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions do not make out any substantial ground as to why such efficacious alternative remedy is allowed to be bypassed and this writ petition is to be entertained by this Court. The question of jurisdiction was sought to be urged by both the learned counsel by contending that DRT has exceeded in its jurisdiction and thereby justified filing of this writ petition questioning the said order. 5. We have perused the impugned order and we find that several questions, which were raised for consideration before DRT, have been considered by the Tribunal on the basis of the material on record. Whether the findings of the Tribunal are justified or not is a matter for the appellate authority to examine and it is not, as if, that the remedy of appeal has any restrictions, while considering the said contentions of either side including the contention of petitioner that DRT has exceeded in it’s jurisdiction. The remedy of appeal available to both the petitioners is an effective, alternative remedy in the nature of an appeal and the appellate authority can go into all questions of law and fact including jurisdiction as is sought to be raised by the petitioners herein. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are granted liberty to avail the alternative remedy as provided under the SARFAESI Act and the petitioners are granted four (4) weeks time from today to enable them to file the appeals, if they are so advised. If any such appeals are filed and if they are in order, the appellate authority shall entertain the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. We are sure that the appellate authority would consider and dispose the appeals on priority basis. As this Court had already passed interim orders on 16.12.2008 and 29.12.2008, we deem it appropriate to continue the same interim order pending consideration of the appeals as directed above. However, if no such appeals are filed, as permitted herein, the interim orders shall cease to operate after six weeks from today. If such appeals are filed, as permitted, the appellate authority shall be free to deal with appeals and the interim applications, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J January 28, 2009 DSK