IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15202 of 2008 Between: Chandrakant Sharda S/o.Sri B.D Sharda Plot No.46&50 Sanjiviah Colony Tadbund,Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Debts Recovery Tribunal (Ministry of Finance Central Government) 5th Floor Triveni Complex Abids,Hyderabad rep.by its Presiding Officer 2 Small Industries Development Bank of India 5-9-89/1&2 Chapel Road, 3rd Floor Hyderabad-500001 Rep.by its General Manager 3 D.R.T Bar Association C/o.Debts Recovery Tribunal 5th Floor Treveni Complex Abids Hyderabad Rep.by its Authorised Signatory 4 Rangaoli Texdye Pvt Ltd Sri Ashish Maheswari United Chambers 2-2- 57/20, Pan Bazar Secunderabad-500003 Rep.by its Managing Director 5 Ashish Maheswarai S/o.R.K.Maheshwari 401 A-Block Usha Enclave Navodaya Colony Srinagar Colony Hyderabad 6 R.K.Maheshwari S/o.Briji Mohan Dasji Maheshwari A-207 Metro Palm Grow Apartments Somajiguda Hyderabad 7 Smt.Minoshi Maheswari W/o.Ashish Maheswari Plot No.129 Shantiniketan Colony Tadbund Secunderabad 8 State Bank Of India Commericial Branch LHO Bank Street Koti Hyderabad-500195 Rep.by its General Manager (Respondents No.4to 8 are not Necessary Parties to this WP) .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dt.26- 06-2008 passed by the DRT Hyderabad in O.A No.1 of 2004 as well as threshold rejection by the 1st respondent across the bench on 07-07-2008 of the Review petition for waiver of the awarded costs of Rs 21,000-00 and the petition for advancement of O.A No.1 of 2004 as being illegal,arbitrary discrininatory and violation of principles of natural justice and of Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guranteed under Article 14&21 and Article 300A of the constitution of India as well as violation of Statutory Rights available to the petitioner under RDBFI Act and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.V.SUBRAMANYA NARASU The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Heard the learned Advocate. The short point involved in this petition is with regard to the validity of costs awarded by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. It is not in dispute that time as prayed for on behalf of the petitioner was granted by the Tribunal on 28-5-2008. Even on an earlier occasion when time was prayed for on behalf of the petitioner, the Tribunal had considered the request of the petitioner and the matter was adjourned on condition of payment of costs of Rs.500/- and again when time was prayed for the purpose of cross-examining the officer who had come from Lucknow by air, the Tribunal was pleased to award a sum of Rs.21,000/- by way of costs, towards traveling expenses etc. to be payable to the respondent-Bank. In the aforesaid circumstances costs of Rs.21,000/- was awarded and it has been specifically stated in the impugned order that the amount of costs will go to the Bank because the Bank had incurred the said expenditure. It is pertinent to note that the person who had to be examined is in the cadre of Deputy General Manager. Such a busy officer had to go back without being examined or cross-examined. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal is harsh while awarding costs, more particularly when in the past also the matter was adjourned at the instance of the petitioner and at that time also costs had been awarded. The learned Advocate has submitted that the petitioner was not aware that the officer was coming from a distant place. In our opinion, the said fact is not relevant. What is relevant is the costs which had been incurred by the respondent-Bank. For the aforestated reasons, we do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. If any review application is filed and the said review application is maintainable, we are sure that the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal on merits. ________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 16th July, 2008. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR